Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the Borough of Middlesbrough (West Division), in the room of the right honourable Harcourt Johnstone, deceased.—[Sir Percy Harris.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INSTITUTION, COCKERMOUTH (STAFF)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the shortage of staff at the Dovenby Hall Colony Institution for Mental Defectives, Cockermouth; whether this institution will be permitted to advertise for candidates; or what steps are being taken by his Ministry to make available sufficient staff to deal with the 335 patients.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Since last December vacancies have been notified to my Department by this institution for four nursing assistants, one assistant seamstress, and one painter decorator. Two nursing assistants have been submitted, one of whom has been engaged, and one is still under consideration. I shall do my best to provide the additional staff needed. I would point out however, that the position compares not unfavourably with that in some other similar institutions, and whilst the institution can advertise for staff under 18 or over 40, I do not feel that I can agree to special treatment as regards advertising for men and women within the controlled-age groups.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I take it that my right hon. Friend will really

try to meet the additional requirements, because it is commonly known in this part of the country that the institution is very short of staff indeed?

Mr. Bevin: I am doing my best for all these institutions, but the position is very difficult.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RECONVERSION

Business Administration Traininģ (Committee)

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour why on Sir Frank Newson-Smith's Committee to advise on training for business administration there is no representative of small independent traders; and if he is prepared to add such a representative in view of the number of Service men who wish to enter this type of business on demobilisation.

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will look at the terms of reference of the Committee, a copy of which I am sending him, he will see that it would not be appropriate to extend its membership as suggested.

Architects and Surveyors (Release from Forces)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Labour whether architects and surveyors now in the Forces will get special emergency releases as soon as regular demobilisation commences.

Mr. Bevin: Under the Government scheme for release from the Forces after the defeat of Germany, it will be open to the appropriate Government Departments to apply for the release of architects and surveyors as individual specialists, provided they are shown to be necessary, and do not involve the reduction of those entitled to come out under Class A.

Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these are key people, and that if they are not available the building trade operatives will be prevented from getting ahead with their work?

Mr. Bevin: I think we can overestimate the value of these specialists. I want to make it clear that I cannot be a party to reducing the number of people entitled to come under Class A. if I did, the whole demobilisation scheme would break down.

Joint Production Committees

Sir Geoffrey Mander: asked the Minister of Labour the present position with regard to the negotiations with the Trade Union Congress and the employers' federations on the future of joint production committees and the maintenance of such machinery of collaboration in the post-war period.

Mr. Bevin: I cannot add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend, in reply to a similar Question, on 28th September last.

Sir G. Mander: As a considerable period has gone by since that reply was given, surely my right hon. Friend is able to report some progress on this important matter? Has there been any development?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir; this question is being discussed between the unions and the employers all the time. I have not endeavoured to bring it down to a rigid formula for all the unions in the country. This matter is being developed every day, in almost every agreement that is made.

House Equipment Manufacture (Scotland)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the concern felt by foundries and engineering firms Scotland that similar firms in England are now offering immediate delivery of cookers and other parts, for which workshop space and plant is available in Scotland; and whether, for these and other industries, he will give an assurance that Scottish workers directed to England for essential war work will, on becoming available for the manufacture of peace-type products, be made available to such industries in Scotland, before they are transferred in England to such work.

Mr. Bevin: I am not aware of any general concern such as is suggested, and I understand that Scotland has been given a substantial proportion of the total production of housing fitments so far allocated. Existing arrangements for reallocating war workers provide for their return home so far as this is possible, having regard to the heavy demands for work of immediate urgency which are still current.

Mr. Woodburn: While these firms generally agree that war work must come first, is my right hon. Friend aware

that certain firms are being asked to proceed with the manufacture of meters, cookers, and other things required for homes, that the girls formerly employed are now in England, and that these firms are concerned about the girls being transferred to work on peace-type products in England, instead of being allowed to come home? If he could assure us that that matter was being attended to it would be an advantage.

Mr. Bevin: I will attend to it; but it is rather striking that the girls who have been transferred to England are not showing a keen anxiety to go back to Scotland.

MINEWORKERS (RECALL TO FORCES)

Sir Robert Younģ: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men released from the Army to work underground in coalmines and placed in W. T. Reserve, are being notified to hold themselves in readiness for medical examination for recall to the Colours; and whether, as this action of recalling efficient coalmine workers will increase the difficulties of coal production and mean an increase in selection and training expense of young men as coalminers who would otherwise be posted to one of the Services, ho will reconsider the question.

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Men on release from the Forces for employment underground in coalmines are not being recalled to the Forces so long as they remain in that employment. If they leave underground coalmining or are reported as being physically unfit for that work, they are, of course, considered for recall.

Sir R. Younģ: Will my right hon. Friend communicate with the R.A. (H.A.A.), Record Office, Dunchurch Road, Rugby, about their issuing orders recalling men in these circumstances, or shall I send him the names of men who have been recalled?

Mr. Bevin: If my hon. Friend will let me have the particulars, I will look into them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Proposed Reservoir, Manifold Valley

Sir G. Mander: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the position with regard to the proposal of the


Leicester Corporation to erect a new reservoir in the Manifold Valley; and whether he will take steps to prevent the area being damaged as a national park.

The Minister of Town and Country Planninģ (Mr. W. S. Morrison): So far as I am aware the Leicester Corporation have not yet taken any formal steps in this matter. I should, however, if authority is sought for these works, consult with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in the matter.

Sir G. Mander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will have a most serious effect on one of the most beautiful valleys in this national park; and will he watch the matter most carefully?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I will see that full consideration is given to all these aspects of the matter.

National Parks (Report)

Sir G. Mander: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when it is proposed to publish the Report on National Parks by Mr. John Dower.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope to be able to publish the Report shortly, but I am not in a position to state the precise date of publication.

Sir G. Mander: In view of the fact that, from all accounts, the Report has been available for many months, and that my right hon. Friend said the other day that he would publish it, why not fix a definite date?

Mr. Morrison: It was only the other day that I said that.

Mr. Edmund Haney: Will my right hon. Friend remember that last September he said, in reply to a question of mine, that he hoped to publish it shortly?

Mr. Morrison: That is quite true. Since then we have had the matter considered by all the Departments whose activities are involved, and that consideration is very nearly finished. I hope to get the Report out very shortly.

Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. Friend let the country know, in general, the areas that he proposes to reserve in this way, so that there will not be the complications which have already been indicated as developing?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, the Report will deal with these areas.

PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Pensions how many men who have served in the present war and have been discharged and granted a pension have since had their pensions reconsidered following medical examination; and how many have had their pensions increased and how many decreased.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour.

WAR ORPHANS (ADOPTION)

Mr. Keelinģ: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he allows the adoption of war orphans not already in the care of relatives; how long is the waiting list of persons who wish to adopt them; and how many war orphans have been placed in public or charitable institutions.

Sir W. Womersley: I have no general objection to the legal adoption of war orphans, but in view of the serious issues involved for the adopting parents and the child I do not give my support to a proposed adoption until an adequate period of trial has shown that it is likely to be a practical success. If satisfied after a reasonable period that adoption would be for the child's permanent benefit, I have supported it. The waiting list of people anxious to adopt war orphans numbers just over 3,000. The number of war orphans under my control who have been placed in public or charitable institutions is seven, and in each instance there is some special reason why the child cannot be placed in a private home. There are, of course, some war orphans who are receiving the benefit of secondary education at one or other of the well-known charitable schools and spend their vacation with relatives or friends.

Mr. Keelinģ: Does that mean that persons on the waiting list are given a child for a probationary period, after which the question of adoption is considered?

Sir W. Womersley: Certainly. I think it is most essential that I should be thoroughly assured that the child will suit the foster parents, and that the foster parents will suit the child, before allowing adoption.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Cloth Supplies, Benģal

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware of a severe shortage of cloth in Bengal; what action is being taken to meet the need; what contracts for cloth have been given by die Government; and whether tenders were asked for these.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): War conditions have led to a reduction throughout India of the supply of cotton cloth available for civil consumption. Supplies allocated to Bengal as to other provinces are on the basis of a proportion of previous consumption, but there are local difficulties of distribution, and complaints have been made recently of severe shortage in some parts of the province. Ministers of the Bengal Government are answerable for distribution within the province and detailed information is not available here as to the remedial measures they contemplate.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply more fully to the latter part of my Question—whether tenders were asked for contracts given by the Government?

Mr. Amery: The matter is entirely one for the Bengal Government; and I do not know whether, they have asked for tenders, or mean to ask for them.

Indian Army Officers

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that there is no scheme of repatriation for temporary officers in the Indian Army similar to that in force for British Army officiers attached to the Indian Army; and if he will take steps to correct this anomaly.

Mr. Amery: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) on 14th November and to my hon. Friend the Member for the Cathcart division of Glasgow (Mr. F. Beattie) on 14th December of which I am sending him copies.

Mr. Hall: As this matter arouses considerable feeling and the anomaly is one which could be ironed out, will the right hon. Gentleman look again, to see if something cannot be done for these officers?

Mr. Amery: I believe that everything has been done that could be done. If the hon. Member looks at my previous answers, both to Questions on the Paper and to supplementaries, I think he will find his point completely covered.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that emergency commissioned officers of the Indian Army are being subjected to hardship on release from Army service in India, owing to delays in settling up their pay and allowances; and if he will take steps to remedy this.

Mr. Amery: I am sure that the Government of India endeavour to avoid delays in the settlement of the accounts of officers released from service; I will, however, specifically bring to their notice the question of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Political Situation (Discussions with Viceroy)

Captain Ganunans: asked the Secretary of State for India if his discussions with Lord Wavell will include consideration of the political situation in India.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India to what extent the visit of Lord Wavell to this country indicates a reconsideration of political issues and the possibility of fresh negotiations towards a settlement; and whether the question of the release of political detainees is likely to be discussed.

Mr. Amery: As I stated in the Rouse last week, I hope to discuss all political issues, as well as many other issues, with Lord Wavell.

Captain Ganunans: Will these discussions cover such points as the early Indianisation of the Viceroy's Council?

Mr. Amery: As I have said before, they cover all points.

Mr. Sorensen: Does it also include reconsideration of the question of releasing political detainees?

Mr. Amery: Again, I say that all points are covered.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Secretary of State not only consider the release of political leaders but also consider the representation of the political leaders at San Francisco?

Mr. Amery: My previous answer covers that, too.

Press Aģencies (Payments)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the amounts paid to Reuters and the Associated Press by the Central Governments and the Provincial Governments either as subsidies, fees or subscriptions and the increase in these amounts during the past six years; what amounts are paid to any other agency of a similar character; and whether there is any Indian representative on Reuters.

Mr. Amery: I am making inquiries of the Government of India and will inform the hon. Member of the outcome.

PRISON LIBRARIES

Mr. Keelinģ: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the expenditure per prisoner on books for prison libraries has been or will be raised to cover the increase since the outbreak of war in the cost of books.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Under a Treasury ruling common to all Departments with grants for buying books, the grant for books for prison libraries was cut by 25 per cent. in 1940. I am glad to say that it has now been found possible to restore this grant to the pre-war figure. In the meantime, however, with the goodwill and encouragement of the County Councils Association, very valuable help, which I gratefully acknowledge, has been given to prison libraries from various county libraries and also from other libraries and from private gifts. Arrangements have now been made at some prisons for prisoners to have access to the prison library and to choose and exchange their own books; this, wherever it has been instituted, has resulted in a marked decrease in destruction of books, and it is hoped to extend this experiment to other prisons as soon as the staff situation permits.

Mr. Keelinģ: Does my right hon. Friend think that, as a result of these arrangements, for which I thank him, the supply of hooks available per prisoner is as great as it was before the war?

Mr. Morrison: I think so, and, indeed, the county libraries arrangement, I think, should enable the number of books to be greater than before the war.

Mr. McEntee: Can the Minister say whether HANSARD is supplied, and, if not, whether he will consider supplying it?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know, and I do not know what demand there is.

CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (SENTENCES)

Major Peto: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the strong public feeling that the sentences being imposed by magistrates in cases of cruelty to children are inadequate; and whether he will take early steps to circularise those concerned or to take such other action as appears to him to be desirable to ensure heavier sentences in such cases.

Mr. H. Morrison: It is the responsibility of magistrates, in this as in other classes of offence, to decide what is the appropriate penalty having regard to all the circumstances of the particular case. I have no information which suggests that there is any general failure to do so where offences of cruelty to children are concerned, as distinct from neglect due to ignorance or lack of training, and a circular from me is not necessary for the purpose of calling the attention of magistrates to public feeling on this matter. Moreover, in the exercise of judicial functions it is of paramount importance that magistrates should address their minds to the merits of the individual case and should not be carried away by waves of feeling which may occur from time to time in the direction of either leniency or severity. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that, for these reasons, it would be wrong for me to recommend an indiscriminate increase of sentences for this class of offence.

Major Peto: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he is aware of the very great public feeling that there is at present about this class of case?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I certainly am, and I am quite sure that the magistrates are also aware of it.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend also aware that there is a great deal of feeling about circularising magistrates?

SERVICE REGISTER (PRISONERS OF WAR)

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that British prisoners of war returning to this country between now and the General Election will not be deprived of their right to vote because they have been unable to complete the service electoral registration forms by the appointed day.

Mr. H. Morrison: Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act provides that an electoral declaration by a member of the Forces who has been a prisoner of war, if endorsed to this effect, will entitle him to be included in a service register provided the declaration is received not later than four clear days before nomination day. The Service Departments have taken steps to give effect to this provision.

Mr. Driberģ: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether the provisions are being made known to the prisoners of war, or whether they will automatically he made known to them on their return to this country?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will, of course, appreciate that it is not too easy to let them know as things are, but steps have been taken to see that, immediately they are released, they shall be informed.

STREET MUSICIANS AND MENDICANTS

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a gradually increasing number of street musicians and other mendicants are making their appearance in London; and whether, in view of the continuing shortage of labour and the more generous treatment now available from the appropriate social services, he will take steps to check this growth.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not aware of any recent marked increase in the number of street musicians or mendicants, but I am in sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend has in mind, and I have been in consultation with the Commissioner of Police on the subject. The Metropolitan Police are well aware of the desirability of doing everything they can to deal with those who exploit the mistaken generosity of many members of the public, and I am

satisfied that there will be no failure on the part of the police to make the fullest use of their powers to mitigate this nuisance.

Sir A. Beit: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for the powers of the Metropolitan Police to be somewhat strengthened in this respect, particularly in view of the fact that the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions have made appropriate arrangements now for training and rehabilitation schemes, which could be applied to the people described in the Question?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider the point. I am afraid that it will involve legislation, to which it might be difficult to give time, but, as I say, I will look into the point.

Sir A. Beit: Will my right hon. Friend make an Order in Council to deal with it?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. That would be a grave abuse of the powers of delegated legislation under the Emergency Powers Act—an offence which I should be shocked to commit.

Sir William Wayland: Is it not a fact that most of these people are old and decrepit?

Mr. Morrison: They are a mixed lot, but I would not attempt to make any general description of them.

Sir J. Lucas: Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the barrel organ grinders?

PUBLICATION, "THE VANGUARD"

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a leaflet, signed Alexander Ratcliffe, advertising a publication called "The Vanguard," which is being circulated to Members of Parliament and others, in which Hitler is held up as
the saviour of Europe if he succeeds in sweeping hack Bolshevism, which is blessed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the American President";
and that action he is taking to prevent the, irculation of leaflets designed to haper our war effort.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I have considered the leaflet which my hon. Friend has sent me. It is very similar to the


propaganda which this man has been disseminating since the beginning of the war, and objectionable though it is, I have found no evidence that he has succeeded in persuading the British public to accept his extraordinary views. Intervention on my part would appear to be unnecessary.

Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend say why this Mr. Ratcliffe and his pernicious paper should not be dealt with under Regulation 18B, under which far less notorious and more humble persons have been dealt with; and what is the reason for this differentiation?

Mr. Morrison: Regulation 18B was never meant to be used to put inside everybody we disagree with, and it is most important that that should be remembered. If I were convinced that this man was a danger to security, and the prosecution of the war, in he would go, but I am convinced that he is not, and that he is not worth the distinction that 18B would confer upon him.

Miss Rathbone: While agreeing with my right hon. Friend that this man and his activities are beneath contempt and should be ignored, is the Minister aware that the same man issued a regular stream of publications advocating a sort of racial hatred and anti-Semitism of the most violent form, and that he is doing real harm among ignorant people, and cannot that side of his activities be repressed?

Mr. Morrison: It is objectionable, but, again, the only question for me is this—Is it endangering security and the prosecution of the war to such an extent that I should take extreme action? I do not think it is and I beg of the House to treat with respect the instinct at the Home Office that we should not use these exceptional powers, unless it is really justified in the public interest.

Mr. Sorensen: Is there the slightest likelihood of this publication altering the further progress of the war now?

Sir W. Davison: In view of the shortage of paper, surely paper ought not to be supplied to such a publication as this?

Mr. Morrison: That is not for me, but for the Minister of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Salary Scales (Uncertificated Teachers)

Sir R. Younģ: asked the Minister of Education whether newly-qualified teachers, with reference to the scale of salaries, are those who have 20 plus years of experience; whether that means they are in the same position as new inexperienced persons entering the teaching profession; and whether he will reconsider the position created by the suggested one increment above the basic scale for every three years' service over 20 years, so that the period of service should entitle such teachers between 55 and 60 years of age to the maximum of the scale of pensions.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Butler): As indicated in paragraph 10 of Circular 30, uncertificated teachers who, at any time between 1st April, 1945, and 31st March, 1950, have completed not less than twenty years' service as uncertificated teachers may be regarded as qualified teachers. I do not think a comparison can properly be made between these teachers and others who have completed a course of training before entering the teaching profession and are thereby eligible to enter at the minimum of the scale for qualified teachers. As the hon. Member realises, some allowance is made for past service in excess of twenty years in the starting pay of uncertificated teachers, who, under the new arrangements, will proceed on the basic scale for qualified teachers, and I see no reason to question the recommendations of the Burnham Committee in this respect.

Sir R. Younģ: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that 20 years is a very long period to serve under present conditions in this respect; and can he say whether any of these uncertificated teachers will ever reach the maximum?

Mr. Butler: I think that only a few months ago the uncertificated teacher would have been very surprised if he had been able to get as far as this. I believe that there is a sense of gratitude among uncertificated teachers for the course of action I have adopted, and I am afraid that I cannot go any further.

Fleminģ Report (Scheme B)

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Minister of Education what conclusions


were reached at his recent interview with the school authorities to whom Scheme B of the Fleming Report may apply; whether that scheme has his support; and when and if it can be carried into effect even without the adherence of all those to whom it is designed to apply.

Mr. Butler: The representatives of governing bodies and of the associations of headmasters and headmistresses who recently met me expressed their readiness to co-operate with my Department in examining the details of Scheme B. of the Fleming Report. I have gladly accepted this offer, and until the examination has been completed, I think it would be premature for me to express any general opinion on the merits of Scheme B. or on the methods of putting it into effect.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that Scheme B has been applied to entry into Dartmouth College in its entirety by the First Lord of the Admiralty; can he say by what means Members of Parliament can keep up to date in this very important matter, and finally, what measure of support and of opposition he got at the recent meeting?

Mr. Butler: I cannot add anything in respect of the last part of the question. In respect of Dartmouth College, I can only say that the scheme for Dartmouth College has a certain similarity to Scheme B and appears to be very successful.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in principle, he will be prepared to accept the scheme which is applied to some of the schools, or does he feel that he will have to wait until it applies to all schools?

Mr. Butler: I think we had better see how the negotiations proceed.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: May I ask my right hon. Friend how it comes about that the proposal of Scheme B, which has been out and published for such a very long time, is now only being examined by the people to whom it is designed to apply?

Mr. Butler: I should think there has been enough activity on the educational front to account for a certain delay, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the implication of Scheme B had to be considered and fully examined by the parties interested. They then requested to see me and I acceded to their

request, and had a very fruitful meeting. Had the matter been rushed the meeting might not have been so fruitful. This accords with my policy throughout the negotiations for educational reform.

Requisitioned Schools (Southampton)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Education if he is now satisfied with arrangements made to return the use of the Southampton schools to the education committee before the summer term.

Mr. Butler: Two of the four secondary schools Concerned have been de-requisitioned, but I shall not be satisfied until all the schools are returned to the local education authority, and I am exploring every available means, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, of securing that this should be brought about at the earliest possible moment.

Sir W. Davison: Can my right hon. Friend make representations with regard to the return of St. Dunstan's College, which has been half occupied by the military for a very long time?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Women Medical Students

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health (1) what steps he proposes to take to provide tuition for the large number of women medical students who are unable to obtain entrance to hospitals, pending a change of policy of the teaching hospitals reserved for men;
(2) if he is aware that whereas male medical students are not called upon to sit for competitive entrance examination, the competition for the small number of vacancies allotted to female students is severe; and if, in view of the large additional numbers of doctors which will be required after the war, he is taking steps to increase the facilities for female medical students, and to abolish competitive examinations in their case.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a large number of women students who have taken their first M.B. are unable to obtain places


in medical schools; and if he has any proposals to make to deal with this situation in view of the shortage of doctors.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): It is necessary, in order that man-power may be allocated in the best way, to fix quotas for the numbers of men and women to be admitted as medical students. The women's quota is fixed by reference to the number of women students admitted in the three years 1937–40, and in addition a medical school which admits both men and women may make good the deficiency in male students by admitting women. Neither the teaching staff nor the accommodation is at present available for extending teaching facilities. I would, however, refer my hon. Friends to the statements of policy made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13th February, and by myself on r8th January, in which the Government have given every encouragement to universities to formulate plans at once for development of their medical schools a soon as conditions permit, with special reference to the needs of women students.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman fully alive to the urgency of this problem? Does he realise that there are hundreds of brilliant young women who have passed their first medical who are now regarded as redundant, although there is an urgent need for doctors; and is he also aware that the quota that was fixed was determined by the fact that only four hospitals in London admit women, whereas every hospital admits men—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that I have two Questions on the Paper, may I ask a supplementary on the second Question now, instead of having to get up again? Is the Minister aware that this competition, which men do not have to take, is so severe that questions, such as, "Who is Dennie Cherrol?"; "Who painted the Folies Bergères'?"; and "Who was in possession of Memel in 1937?", were asked of these girls in February of this year?

Mr. Willink: I cannot possibly answer all these questions, but I am fully aware of the urgency of the matter, not less because I have a daughter who is a

prospective medical student. The real difficulty is the shortage of teachers at the moment, and that is one of the matters to which we are paying particular attention.

Mr. Messer: May I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of the fact that there are many students who are allowed to get up to their second M.B. but they cannot get into hospital and they thus waste all the time they have spent in study; is he aware of the fact that much of the difficulty arises from lack of accommodation; will he consider the possibility of public hospitals becoming medical schools; and is he aware that what he has just said relates to men and does not relate to women?

Mr. Willink: The possibility of the use of public hospitals for medical schools was, of course, fully considered by a very responsible Committee, the Goodenough Committee, on whose conclusions I have already made a statement.

Sir William Wayland: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some nurses who volunteered are anxious to pursue their medical studies, and will he facilitate their release from public hospitals to which they are now attached?

Mr. Willink: That is really quite a different question.

Tuberculosis (Wales)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of tuberculosis notified in Wales during the past year; what is the number of persons now awaiting admission to sanatoria; and what steps are being taken to increase the accommodation at sanatoria.

Mr. Willink: The answers to the first and second parts of the Question are 4983 and 729. Building work, which is expected to be completed within the next six months, is proceeding at the Glan Ely and Cefn Mably Tuberculosis Hospitals to provide 96 additional patient beds. One hundred and fifty beds have also been secured at the Ministry of Pensions Hospital, Chepstow, and are being brought into commission as staff becomes available.

Mr. Griffiths: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether those figures show an increase or a decrease on the previous year?

Mr. Willink: I am sorry—I have not the previous figures by me.

Artificial Insemination (Experiments)

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Minister of Health in how many clinics and by how many physicians are experiments now being conducted in the artificial insemination of women; how many children have been or are expected shortly to be born in Britain as a result of such experiments; how many of these children are the offspring of their mother's husband; how many of anonymous donors; and in the latter case, how the facts are recorded in the register of births.

Mr. Willink: I have no information on the first part of the Question beyond what has appeared in the medical Press, from which I understand that artificial insemination has been carried out at a voluntary clinic at Exeter. On the subsequent parts of the Question I have no information, but, so far as I am aware, no births have been registered as resulting from artificial insemination.

Mr. Driberģ: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that this is a very serious development, with tremendous social and legal, as well as scientific, implications, with great possibilities and great dangers; and will he call for a full report from the physicians concerned, and make all the facts known to the House?

Mr. Willink: I will consider that question, but I am in some doubt whether I have power to call for a full report from physicians acting in a private capacity.

Mr. James Griffiths: Who is responsible for running this clinic?

Mr. Willink: I do not know precisely but it is a voluntary clinic.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider having this added to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Population, who would have power to call evidence?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, I doubt very much whether that body would be the appropriate body to consider this question.

Mr. McEntee: Is this not of sufficient importance for the Minister to seek these powers?

Mr. Driberģ: Is there any way by which this House can be informed on this tremendously important development?

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to let a practice of such great importance to this country go uncontrolled while he is Minister of Health; and will he not take legal powers to deal with a matter of this kind?

Mr. Willink: This obviously has every possibility of being a most difficult and controversial subject. On the information I have at present, which, as I have told the House, is restricted to what has appeared in the medical Press, it is clear that it has many facets and many possibilities, but I will consider what has been suggested and whether I can obtain fuller information than has appeared so far.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the whole matter a highly dangerous one?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Bombed-Out People (Billetinģ Allowances)

Mr Messer: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that hardship is caused to some bombed-out people when their billeting allowance stops and they are called upon to pay rent and other expenses involving them in a loss; and if he will amend the regulations so as to provide for payment of allowances to cover any such loss.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. Where bombed-out people are temporarily accommodated under official arrangements and hardship would be caused by the withdrawal of the billeting allowances, the billeting authority has discretion to continue payment and, in assessment for recovery, any continuing liabilities in respect of the original home are taken into consideration. If my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any specific case of hardship, I shall be glad to look into it.

London Ambulance Service (War Service Chevrons)

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health if members of the London Ambulance Service will be entitled to wear war service chevrons in view of the fact that under the Civil Defence (Employment), No. 2, Order, 1940, they were enrolled as C.D. workers.

Mr. Willink: As I indicated in reply to my hon. Friend on 2nd November last,


members of the London Ambulance Service are entitled to wear war service chevrons if they have in fact been enrolled as whole-time Civil Defence workers. The order cited by my hon. Friend, which required men employed in certain specified services to continue in their employment until released, did not provide for enrolment, its application to any particular person being a matter for decision by the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Council Houses (Rents)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the decision of the Ampthill, Bedfordshire, rural council to increase the rents of their houses by 1s. per week to meet the increased cost of repairs; what percentage this increase is on the net rental; and under what authority local authorities owning houses are in a more favourable position in this -respect than private owners.

Mr. Willink: My attention had not previously been drawn to this decision. The increase represents 18.4 per cent. on the average rental, excluding rates, and is made under the authority of section 83 of the Housing Act, 1936, and section 3 (2) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1939.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Has the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman been drawn to other local authorities since I put my Question down, such as the L.C.C., who are also increasing their rents by as much as 5s. per week? Also, he has not answered the part of my Question where I asked why should local authorities be more favourably placed than private owners.

Mr. Willink: If the hon. Gentleman will look again at his Question he will find that he did not ask for reasons or causes; he asked, "Under what authority local authorities owning houses are in a more favourable position." The answer that I gave him indicated that it was under authority given by Parliament.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: When will private owners be placed iii the same position as local authorities?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend is perhaps aware that I have very recently received the report of the.Rent Control Committee, which is now under consideration.

Mr. Buchanan: On that point, could I ask my right hon. and learned Friend, since he has had this report now a fair time, when it is likely to be published?

Mr. Willink: I think that that Question is on the Paper to-day. The answer is that it will be published shortly after Easter.

Architects and Surveyors

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Health if it is with his approval that newspaper and B.B.C. advertisements are being issued calling for architects and surveyors to serve in occupied Germany; and how this appeal is reconciled with the known shortage of these skilled men whose services in the housing programme are in such demand in this country.

Mr. Willink: The advertisements to which my hon. Friend refers were issued by the Minister of Labour and National Service on the recommendation of an Inter-departmental Committee. The Government are fully aware of the need for technical staff in this country and the staff required for the Control Commission will be recruited with due regard to that need.

Mr. Stewart: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in the opinion of all the local authorities with which I have been in contact, it is a preposterous suggestion to induce British architects and surveyors, who are in such short supply, to go to Germany to rebuild that country?

Mr. Bossom: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Minister of Labour this morning demonstrated great hesitation about releasing architects and surveyors, and if more are affected in this way will it not jeopardise the success of the housing programme?

Mr. Willink: No one could be more fully aware than I that local authorities should increase their technical staff. On the other hand, the policy of the Government with regard to the control of Germany quite obviously necessitates the use of a proper number of officials in many categories, of which this is one.

Prefabricated Components

Mr. Bosom: asked the Minister of Works whether he has considered installing assembling plants for prefabricated materials so enabling a saving of time and cost in post-war housing schemes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): For the purpose of the temporary housing programme steps have already been taken to set up depots where prefabricated components are assembled for distribution to sites. We already have in mind the possibilities of similar arrangements for the components of permanent houses when these come into production.

Mr. Bossom: Would my hon. Friend look into this question again and see whether it is possible to have them in the major regions, because it has been proved that where they have been used not only money but time as well has been saved?

Mr. Hicks: I can assure my hon. Friend that the country is well covered with the depots we are now setting up; we have roughly 240,000 square feet available at this moment and are speeding up to well over 1,000,000 square feet.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Currency Notes (Desiģn)

Mr. Stourton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the first issue of the designs now in use of £5, £1 and 10s. notes was made; and the nominal value of forged currency notes of each denomination withdrawn from circulation since these issues were made.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): In reply to the first part of the Question, the present designs of the £1 and 10s, notes were introduced in 1928 and that of the £5 note in 1855. It would involve a very disproportionate amount of labour to extract the information asked for in the second part of the Question, but the number of forgeries received is insignificant.

Mr. Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the making of a new issue of notes and the invalidation of the old issue is long overdue now in order to counter the activities of the forgers and tax evaders?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a matter which has not escaped attention.

Mr. Stourton: Arising out of that unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I will raise the subject on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Holidays with Pay (Taxation Liability)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any company, promoted with the object of guaranteeing builders and engineering firms against disbursements in connection with holidays with pay, have claimed exemption from taxation under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, of interest on funds accumulated under such a scheme; and whether such accumulated funds are liable for reimbursement to the employers who have subscribed to such a scheme but who, during the accounting year, owing to the transference of labour to other industries have made no claims.

Sir J. Anderson: I am not clear what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I gather that he is asking me to make a statement as to the taxation position of a particular concern, and I am afraid I cannot express any opinion as to the liability to tax in particular cases.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Chancellor aware that a certain company collected, in about 15 months, £1,700,000 from employers, for holidays with pay, and disbursed only £250,000, and invested £1,300,000 in War Bonds, which brought in £17,000 interest, on which the Revenue authorities admitted a claim for exemption? Does he not think that in such cases some tightening of the law is necessary?

Sir J. Anderson: Even if I were aware of such facts, I could not say so.

Leģislation (Post-War Cost)

Sir W. Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will inform the House of the estimated probable cost involved by the Education Act when fully in operation and other schemes recently approved in principle by Parliament, such as the 5s. a week grant for the second child, additional meals and milk for schoolchildren, gratuities for the Forces on demobilisation, Colonial development, building subsidies, etc.

Sir J. Anderson: The cost of supplying free meals and milk to children at school is estimated to be £60,000,000 when the


service is fully developed (see Cmd. 6550, Paragraph 51). The estimated cost of war gratuities for the Forces on demobilisation is £200,000,000 and other release benefits (release leave, civilian outfits, post-war credits and foreign service leave) are estimated to cost a further £500,000,000. Estimates of the cost of the other items mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question are included in the statement published in the OFFICIAL REPORT for Wednesday, 28th March, in response to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) on 13th March. I should perhaps make it clear that the figures shown in this statement under the heading of "Education" do not include the cost of free meals and milk to children at school, which I have given above.

Sir W. Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say what are the approximate totals of these figures, including those given by him to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams)?

Sir J. Anderson: I would ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to look at today's HANSARD, where he will see a tabular statement which gives the fullest information.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Women's Land Army

Major Peto: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is yet in a position to state whether arrangements will be made to enable those members of the W.L.A. who would like to make a career in agriculture at the end of the war to receive the necessary training facilities to do so.

The Minister of Aģriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As I stated on 22nd February, the further education and training scheme, and the vocational training scheme, particulars of which have already been announced, will be available for suitable members of the Women's Land Army in common with men and women released from other forms of war service. So far as the present position is concerned, W.L.A. members can now be released to take courses at colleges and universities with a view to securing teaching and advisory posts in agriculture; and members who are considered suitable and can find

vacancies at shorter courses at farm institutes may be allowed to take those courses while retaining their membership of the Land Army.

Major Peto: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that women are still being recruited into the W.L.A. at the approximate rate of 300 per month, steps are being taken to make clear to these women that they will not receive the same pecuniary benefits at the end of hostilities as if they entered other Services.

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. There is no need for the special steps suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Piģs and Poultry

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the decrease in the poultry and pig populations of this country since the commencement of the war and the importance of maintaining and increasing these to provide additional food, he can now make a statement on the Government's intentions in these matters.

Mr. Hudson: The Government's intention in these matters were clearly stated in the announcement which I made in this House on 5th December last, namely, to encourage an expansion of production of pig-meat, poultry and eggs to the fullest extent permitted by the supplies of feeding stuffs which can be made available.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the world food position and that those remarks, while they may be true, will need to he carefully investigated and every endeavour made to get more additional feeding-stuffs in view of the shortage, which is very serious?

Sir William Wayland: May I thank the Minister of Agriculture for the extra rations which he has given to poultry keepers during the last six months?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the shortage of meat and the possibility of a cut in the meat ration, he will encourage the pig breeders to market pigs at smaller weights for pork and pork products; and whether he will give special consideration to the difficulties of the pig producers in getting pigs to the larger weights, in view of the shortage of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. Hudson: The numbers of pigs marketed at the lighter weights suitable for pork have already increased during recent months without any specific encouragement; but it does not follow that this will lead to a greater output of homegrown pig meat, owing to the relatively higher requirement of concentrated feeding-stuffs of the small pig. An expansion of pork production in these circumstances might well take place at the expense of bacon production.

Mr. De la Bère: But does my right hon. Friend appreciate the difficulty of getting the small pig to the correct weight in view of the feeding shortage and the necessity of putting down more land for feeding-stuffs?

Mr. Snadden: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that owing to the world shortage of meat which we are facing, the time has perhaps come when the Government should review their price scales which give such overwhelming emphasis to milk, in order to expand the whole production of meat in this country?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, but not only is there a world shortage of meat; there is also a world shortage of available feeding-stuffs.

Fat Cattle (Marketinģ)

Mr. De la Bģre: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, with a view to increasing food supplies, he will give encouragement to home producers to market fat cattle at smaller weights; and whether he will endeavour to avoid fluctuation in the price of fat cattle throughout the year.

Mr. Hudson: Encouragement has been given for some time, through the operation of the existing price scales, to the marketing of fat cattle at weights most suitable for the highest production of home produced meat consistent with good quality. The answer to the second part is No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bģre: But does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the fluctuations are very bad and farmers really do not know where they stand?

Mr. Hudson: On the contrary, they are very good, and they are made in agreement with the National Farmers Union.

Opencast Mininģ (Land Restoration)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land have been taken for opencast mining; how many have been restored; and how many complaints he has had from farmers since restoration about the land not retaining its level.

Mr. Hudson: The total area of land in England and Wales taken for opencast mining is 19,370 acres and the total area so far completely restored is 1,85o acres. A number of complaints have been received of restored land not retaining its level, and where these prove to be justified and where there is sufficient top soil available, the County War Agricultural Executive Committees do what they can to regrade the site.

Mr. Tinker: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep a watch on this matter, because I have been informed that many parts have sunk after being filled up, with the result that it is going derelict? Surely it is the duty of someone to watch it?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of the situation. It is giving me considerable cause for anxiety because, in the course of my travels round the country, I have been to see a number of places where complaints were made of unsatisfactory restoration of the site. Of course, one of the best ways of avoiding that would be if we could get more coal from proper pits and not have to rely on opencast mining.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Minister of Fuel and Power has consistently told us from that Box that land in every case has been restored, and it is not only as good after the restoration but in many cases even better? That does not fit in with his statement this morning.

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware that my right hon. and gallant Friend has made such a categorical statement as that. There is no doubt that in a number of cases the restoration has been very satisfactory and in some cases the land has been improved, owing to improved drainage; on the other hand, the experience of the last six months has shown that, in a number of cases, sites which we thought had been properly and satisfactorily restored have, in the light of experience, proved not to have been so satisfactorily restored as we thought at first.

Mr. Manninģham-Buller: Is it not the case that many hundreds of acres which have been laid waste by iron ore mining have not been restored, and are not included in the figures which my right hon. Friend has just given?

Mr. Hudson: That is true. As my hon. Friend knows, that matter is receiving my attention at the present moment with a view to discovering practical methods of restoring such land.

BRETTON WOODS CONFERENCE PROPOSALS (INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to give the House detailed information of the scope and object of the discussions between Lord Keynes, a number of Members of this House and himself.

Sir J. Anderson: These were informal talks between certain hon. Members and myself arranged, so far as I am concerned, partly in order to meet requests that had been made to me and partly in order that I might have the advantage of hearing any views that those hon. Members might care to express. I do not think it would be in accordance either with the practice or with the general wish of the House that a Minister should be called upon to give an account of such proceedings on the Floor of the House. Nor do I think that the House would wish to interfere with the long-established practice of holding informal talks of this nature.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Would it not entirely destroy contact between colleagues in the House if any such statement was made?

Sir J. Anderson: That is how it seemed to me.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling that in the contacts he had he gave a certain preference to a group of Members in their approach to him? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that is so, and it is no use saying, "No."

Sir J. Anderson: I did my best to afford facilities to all Members whom I thought might like to take advantage of my offer to see them. I had certain consultations as to whom should be invited.

Some Members took the initiative in writing to me, and if my hon. Friend or anyone else who has not been included in this series of conferences likes to come, I shall be delighted.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling, which I share—and I also say this to the Leader of the House, because it applies on other issues as well—that there are certain groups of privileged Members, who are picked for these discussions? I have been in the House for a long time and never once have I been invited, and I do not think that I am less intelligent than other Members. I have never been approached in any way in these matters, on which there is a feeling that a privilege is given to certain Members.

Sir Alfred Beit: Would it not be quite useless to ask Members to interviews of this kind, unless they had some understanding of the subject under discussion?

Mr. Buchanan: How do they know? What understanding have these other hon. Members?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is the feeling that these meetings have been called for the purpose of endeavouring to get Members to support the Bretton Woods proposals, so that he can inform the Prime Minister that the House will be in favour of any Motion which the Government put forward on this matter?

CLOTHING PURCHASE (INQUIRY)

Sir W. Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a contract for the supply of night-shirts and pyjamas entered into with Messrs. Hodgkinson, Limited, and Messrs. J. B. Limited, and that his Department are refusing to pay for a large quantity of such goods for which formal acknowledgments have been given; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): The Board of Trade do not purchase clothing, and I have no knowledge of the matters to which my hon. Friend refers.

Sir W. Davison: Do I understand that these contracts have not been before the


Board of Trade? One of my constituents has been complaining to me that he cannot get payment until deliveries have been approved.

Captain Waterhouse: The Board of Trade do not purchase any clothing and, therefore, such contracts could not have been before the Board.

FISHING VESSELS, FIFE (RELEASE)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a number of fishermen from the Fife coast are being paid off from Admiralty service, and have no boats with which to earn a living; and, if in order to prevent unemployment, he will arrange for the release of a few fishing vessels for the use of such men.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend understands that a few former fishing craft previously employed in the Forth have been withdrawn for duties elsewhere, and that since the engagements upon which crews were serving did not bind them to these new duties, they were paid off. He is in communication with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to the earliest possible return of fishing vessels to the area.

Mr. Stewart: While being appreciative of that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will bear in mind that the admitted excessive withdrawal of fishing vessels from the Fife coast has resulted in that part of the coast, more than any other, being depleted of the necessary vessels?

Mr. Westwood: Certainly.

BRITISH ARMY (OVERSEAS SERVICE)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the introduction of an age limit for men serving in the Army being sent to the Far East; and if men of 40 years of age and upwards will receive preferential posting to the European theatres of war and home service.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I would

refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friends the Members for Whitechapel (Mr. Walter Edwards) and Spen Valley (Major Woolley) on 27th February and 13th March. The shortage of man-power does not, I regret, enable us to go further than this towards the object my hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir P. Hannon: Has not my hon. and learned Friend had before him very harsh and difficult cases of this kind? Will he review the situation sympathetically?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend will know that every case of hardship that is alleged is dealt with on that basis, but the fact that a soldier is 40 years of age is not regarded, in itself, as being a hardship.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not my hon. and learned Friend aware of the widespread feeling on this matter?

Mr. James Griffiths: Will my hon. and learned Friend see that men of 40 years of age and over are given a special medical examination before they are drafted for service in the Far East?

Mr. Henderson: I hope every medical examination is a thorough one, and I am not prepared to say that there should be a special examination.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that some of these men of 40 years and over have been engaged in heavy manual labour for many years, and will he consider the desirability of consulting his medical advisers as to whether these men should have a special medical examination before they go to the Far East?

Mr. Henderson: Certainly, but in view of the fact that the age of the soldier who is being examined is within the knowledge of the examining doctor, the doctor would have regard to the physical attributes of the soldier in relation to his age.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling on this subject, and that men of over 40 years of age are sometimes brought home from the Middle East and then sent to the Continent, while men who are 15 years younger are not sent? Is he aware that there is a feeling among the men that there is some sort of unfaifness


in this treatment, and will he explore the general position to see whether anything can be done about it?

Mr. Henderson: I will look into the suggestion of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend will remember, of course, that there may be two men, one 40 years of age and the other a younger one who has not served abroad; but if the younger soldier is not a tradesman and the older one is a tradesman in a trade that is required in Europe, the older one must go in preference to the younger one.

TRAIN EXPLOSION (BOOTLE, CUMBERLAND)

Mr. Frank Anderson: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he can state the cause of the explosion that occurred on Thursday, 22nd March, to a southbound train near Bootle Station, Cumberland, causing the death of an L.M.S. engine driver and also damage to adjacent private property, and also whether any steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this sort of accident?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not present now, and therefore will have to give an answer when he arrives.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. As we had a similar experience yesterday with a Minister, would it not be possible to apply the Essential Work Order?

ALLIED PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST (EXPOSURE TO BOMBING)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir CHARLES EDWARDS:

62. To ask the Secretary of State for War to what extent Allied prisoners of war in Japan are compelled to work in war factories; and if, as they are housed in wooden sheds near these factories and the bombing now going on endangers the lives of these men, he will take whatever steps may be possible to have them removed from the danger zone.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. A. Henderson: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I. would like to make a statement in reply to Question 62.

Article 9 of the International Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war provides that
no prisoner may at any time be sent to an area where he would be exposed to the fire of the fighting zone, or be employed to render, by his presence, certain points or areas immune from bombardment.
This article precludes the establishment of prisoner of war camps in close proximity to areas or targets which are liable to bombardment from the air. We and our Allies have conscientiously observed this principle and shall continue to do so.
I regret to inform the House that the Japanese authorities are not conforming to this principle. Early in 1943 the first reports on prisoner of war camps in Metropolitan Japan reached this country. We noted with anxiety that many of the camps were situated in the dockyard and factory areas of Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, and other cities. After consulting our Allies, we represented through the Protecting Power that these camps should be moved from areas which constituted important military targets. These representations have been renewed on several occasions, but without effect. The Japanese have stated that they are "always very careful to establish camps outside danger areas," but none of the camps of which we have complained have been moved. During the construction of the Burma-Siam railway the camps were close to the line and casualties inevitably occurred from Allied bombs.
The railway is a primary objective of our bombing attacks since it is the principal line of supplies to the Japanese forces opposing the 14th Army in Burma. I regret to say that evidence is accumulating that the Japanese are attempting to hamper these attacks by the very means which are specifically forbidden by Article g of the Convention. In other words, they are moving prisoners of war into close proximity to the line with the obvious intention of "rendering it immune from bombardment."
It is essential that attacks on targets vital to the prosecution of the war should go on and that the task of our troops in Burma and elsewhere should not be made more difficult than it already is. The House may be assured, however, that all possible care will be taken by all Allied Air Forces engaged to avoid endangering


our prisoners of war. A protest in the strongest terms has been made through the Protecting Power to the Japanese both by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the Commonwealth Governments and by the United States Government.

Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister consider treating the Japanese who are responsible for this as war criminals?

Mr. Henderson: That question would have to be addressed to another quarter.

Sir R. Glyn: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that his statement will cause anxiety to a great many relatives? Can he say more definitely who are the prisoners of war, whether they are naval or military, and what actual steps have been taken to remove them from these places?

Mr. Henderson: It is not within the province of His Majesty's Government to remove these prisoners. It is a matter for the Japanese Government. The difficulty is that it is the policy of the Japanese Government not to move them away from, but to move them into close proximity to, bombing targets.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Has there yet been any answer to the protest that was made?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

CONTROL COMMISSION, GERMANY (TECHNICAL STAFF)

The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Eden): I ask leave of the House to make a brief statement about the advertisement issued recently by the Ministry of Labour appealing for technical and scientific staff to deal with future industrial activities in Germany, including armaments, heavy engineering, shipbuilding and aircraft. This advertisement was inserted by the Ministry of Labour at the instance of the Deputy-Commissioners of the British Element of the Control Commission for Germany and with the approval of my Department. I am fully aware of the competing demands for British technical and scientific personnel, and the staff required for the Control Commission will be recruited with due regard to the industrial needs of this country. But it is a class of personnel which is indispensable for the task of disarming Germany and rendering German war industries innocuous. These

tasks must have as high a priority as any, and we have agreed with our Allies on the establishment of a Control Commission to carry them out. That, Sir, is the reason for the advertisement, and the high priority which is needed in the matter.

Mr. Buchanan: Could not this have been done in some other way than by a wholesale advertisement, with no limitations, appealing for people in large numbers? Are there not some associations for these technicians which, if they had been applied to, would have secured the people necessary in a much better and easier way than this wholesale, slap-dash method? When the Admiralty wanted some men, they applied through well-known associations of employers and workers and their requirements were met. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this advertisement is almost an affront to people who are homeless?

Mr. Eden: It is because I had that in mind that I wanted to make this statement. Consultations did take place before the advertisement was issued. The qualifications are difficult ones and highly technical ones, and the range is wide, which made consultation difficult. I hope that as a result of what I have said it will be plain that the numbers are not going to be very large and we hope to get them without causing undue dislocation. It is a matter of hundreds and not of thousands.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that there is no suggestion at all that these men are being sent out to rebuild Germany?

Mr. Eden: In practically every case the problem is one of control of the German arms industry, which is the point that I wanted to bring out, and the reason why I wanted to make the statement.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that teachers have also been invited to apply for positions in Germany? Are steps being taken, where education authorities second teachers, to, maintain their pension rights?

Mr. Eden: That question should be put to the Minister of Education. That is another problem. We have a task to carry out. I was anxious that there should not be an exaggerated view of what we have to do.

Sir Percy Hurd: Have the lists been closed and, if so, what result has followed the invitation?

Mr. Eden: I have not heard of the lists being closed. They would not be closed until we had the men we need.

Mr. Butcher: Could not the widespread powers and elaborate machinery of the Ministry of Labour and National Service be examined to see if they can deal with the matter instead of utilising this method of widespread advertisement, which is forbidden to private firms?

Mr. Eden: The advertisement was through the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which was badly needed, may I ask whether he will keep a strong hand on this kind of thing? Is he aware that the Allied Commission representatives are just beginning to swarm into various countries and that they need watching in respect to these matters, particularly when they affect this country, as this matter does?

Mr. Eden: I agree. There are two broad principles that we have to follow. One is that the job must be thoroughly done, and the other is that in man-power it must not be extravagantly done.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Has consideration been given to recruiting these technicians from those of the Forces whose services may not be required after a short time, instead of calling upon private industry, which is already considerably denuded of essential staff?

Mr. Eden: That raises wider considerations which I should not like to be drawn into now.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, quite apart from the necessary work of the Control Commission with regard to the German armaments industry, it is nevertheless to the interest of Europe and the world that Germany shall in fact be rebuilt?

Mr. Eden: The fundamental problem that I am dealing with in this question is to ensure that Germany is not physically in a position to start this business again.

Mr. Molson: Since this advertisement was issued by the Ministry of Labour, why

is the Foreign Secretary making this statement and not the Minister of Labour? Is it because a diplomatic answer was thought to be necessary?

Mr. Eden: I said that the Ministry of Labour did this with the authority of the Foreign Office, because I am the Minister responsible for the Control Commission.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Ministry of Fuel and Power Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to provide for the arrangement or the adjustment and settlement of the affairs of persons in Scotland financially affected by war circumstances."—Liabilities (War-time Adjustment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUSTMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th April, and to be printed [Bill 43].

MINISTRY OF FUEL AND POWER BILL

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday, 10th April, and to be printed [Bill 42].

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Third Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table and to be printed [No. 65].

BILL PRESENTED

OLCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY COMMISSION) BILL

"to provide for the establishment of a Local Government Boundary Commission; to make further provision for the alteration of local government areas in England and Wales exclusive of London; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. Willink, supported by Mr. H. Morrison and Miss Horsbrugh; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, Toth April, and to be printed.—[Bill.41.]

PRESTWICK AIRPORT

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

12.9 p.m.

Mr. Sloan: I want to raise the question of the Prestwick Airport, which has been exercising the mind of the people of Scotland. I do not want to create the impression that we Scotsmen are trailing our coat, or wagging our kilt, but I want the House to understand that we are overpoweringly serious about it. I do not know of any subject which has so stirred Scottish opinion. You have to go back to Bannockburn to fund a parallel. This airport is situated in my constituency, and is centred in one of the most historic parts of Scotland. As a matter of fact it is the cradle of Scottish history, and it may be of interest to the House to know that it is adjacent to the "Barns o' Ayr," where William Wallace experimented with the first incendiary bombs and successfully razed the barns to the ground after he had securely tied the English inside. The suggestion that there will be no place, or a very limited one, for Prestwick Airport has spread anxiety and alarm amongst all classes of Scottish people. I will not attempt to enumerate the various public bodies and organisations which have keenly interested themselves in the matter. Their name is legion. Nothing that breathes the heather or wears the tartan has been left outside.
A Motion was placed on the Order Paper some time ago signed by almost every available Scottish Member of Parliament. By this action we should be meeting the wishes of the Noble Lord who

spoke for the Government in another place and said that, if there was one thing that he would beg for in relation to civil aviation, it was that it should not fall into party politics. Scottish Members have removed Prestwick Airport from the realm of party politics. We stand united in this matter. Indeed, we vie with each other as to who will be the most successful propagandist. If the Government turns a deaf ear to their demand, its blood will be on its own head. We are seriously perturbed at the tardiness of the Government in making a statement as to the future of Prestwick. This reluctance is creating grave suspicion, and past history proves that we have every reason to be distrustful. The want of a clear and definite statement is causing confusion, it retards development, it is holding up planning and creating a difficult situation for local authorities. It is shoving off people who would be likely to engage in light industry if they were assured that there was to be a place in the sun for Prestwick Airport. Scottish opinion is the more alarmed because we are not presenting you with something that is in the experimental stage. It is long past the test tube period. It has been tried and proved. It has served the nation well in time of war and it will be a boon to us in time of peace. It has been tested on the anvil of experience and throughout all the mighty hazards of war it has never failed. The port is loved and adored by the gallant pilots who have used it and has been pronounced one of the best. This aviation centre has been built up by years of effort. It has carved out its own place. It employs some 5,000 workers and it is really a Godsend in an area which drastically requires industries to provide employment for its people. Scotland has become air-minded much more rapidly than any other part of the United Kingdom. This is largely due to the early development in the Islands and Highlands, where air transport was quickly becoming a matter of course. It is not surprising that a clear-cut expression of regional opinion on British air matters should come from the Northern end of the country.
Personal experience has given the people of Scotland a true appreciation of the true purpose of commercial air transport. The people of the Islands have seen sick members of the community transferred by air at short notice to hospitals on the mainland to be treated and cured, where otherwise those patients


might have died within a few hours. There, people have been given a daily service by air as compared with fortnightly services by ship. There, people have seen more passengers arrive by air on their shores than were ever brought in by sea. There, people have seen over a period of years a greater frequency of service by air between Scotland and America than there are trains between Scotland and London. Therefore a race which has been accustomed to the commerce of the seas, and which takes a world-wide view in transport matters, is in no doubt whatever that the future of Britain as a great Power and the prosperity of succeeding generations of British citizens lie in the air.
It seems to us natural, in fact inevitable, that the Scottish people should insist on full development of the unique advantages of Prestwick as a world airport. It is in commercial flying the equivalent of their River Clyde in commercial shipping. It is only reasonable that they should insist upon having a real opportunity to develop their own air lines, the air equivalent of their merchant shipping, and that they should insist upon having every chance to develop their own commercial aircraft manufacturing industry, the air equivalent of Scottish shipbuilding. They are demanding all these things, and demanding them with extraordinary unanimity. It has been said that we Scots have been only too vocal on this subject, but the reason is that we know a little more about it than our neighbours, and are extremely conscious that Scotland is more dependent upon the orderly and rapid development of world aviation than any other region of Great Britain. The demand for this Debate proves that Scotland is well aware of the relative importance of internal and overseas air lines, and we consider it our duty to press for an official decision on the full development and employment of Prestwick Airport as a permanent air base, for the reason that it is the one and only asset which the British mainland has to offer to trans-Atlantic air travel as compared with either existing or potential air bases on the Western air approaches to Europe. We have our own peculiar reasons for this insistence. They are not based on narrow nationalism, because we are thoroughly convinced that what is here good for Prestwick and Scotland would be to the eternal benefit of the country as a whole.
What are the main reasons we advance on behalf of Scotland? They are numerous and I do not want to weary the House, but I should like to state a few of them. Scotland is more dependent on the orderly and rapid development of commercial aviation than any other region in Britain, on account of her present dependence on shipping, shipbuilding and the heavy industries; on account of the present efforts to produce a better balance of industry by the introduction of new forms of commerce and manufacture; and on account of the present poverty of Scotland in the commercial and industrial sense, which is acknowledged in the Distribution of Industry Bill. Secondly, the indicated air policy of the Government means the abandonment of well developed facilities and advantages peculiar to Scotland. Geographically Scotland has the advantage of being closer to the North American Continent, the Northern capitals of Europe and the air traffic routes of the Northern hemisphere.
Prestwick is the only all-the-year-round clear weather airport in Europe. That fact cannot be too strongly emphasised and the Minister ought to take note of it. The use of Prestwick for inter-hemisphere operations over the past five years has become habitual to the air transport organisations of ail Allied nations. It is the only civil organisation in Great Britain possessing the necessary leadership, commercial aviation mentality, technical staff, up-to-date experience and practical facilities for the immediate operation of a large scale air line service. Finally, the Prestwick staff constitutes the only civil organisation in the United Kingdom with actual experience of the management and handling of a trans-Atlantic air terminal and trans-Atlantic air traffic in every detail on a modern scale and with good will abroad and an international reputation for efficiency. Can we afford to disregard these facts and disperse this valuable organisation?
I come to a very important issue which we as Scotsmen cannot afford to ignore, and if the Government ignore it they will do so at their peril. Scottish economy has been tied to shipping, shipbuilding, coal and steel and the heavy engineering industries, and in the air age Scotland must have an equal opportunity to develop the air equivalents' of her basic industries, especially commercial aircraft manufac-


ture and all the ancillary trades and industries attached to air line operations. Unless we get in here on the ground floor it will be another Culloden for Scotland. If we have no airport round which those industries will gather there is very little prospect of securing them. The shipping of the Clyde made Clyde shipbuilding, and Scottish air lines will make a Scottish aircraft industry. The one is the natural corollary of the other.
It has been made abundantly clear in Debates in this House and outside that Scotland must have a share of the light industries. We must not have a repetition of the 1918 post-war experience. Then as now great changes were effected in our economy. Our old industries declined and new light industries took their place—but not in Scotland. Scotland contains about II per cent. of the population, but in 1935, out of a total of 247,948 people employed in electrical engineering in the United Kingdom, only 3,512, or about r per cent., were in Scotland. The corresponding figures for the manufacture of motor vehicles, cycles and aircraft were 270,576 in the United Kingdom and 9,172, or about 3 per cent., in Scotland. We had in Scotland only one small aircraft factory. We cannot, we dare not, we will not allow a return to such an unbalanced economy.
I would repeat that in this matter we are sincerely in earnest, and I would caution the Government to pay serious regard to the representations that will be made to-day by hon. Members from Scotland on both sides of the House. We are at the cross roads, which might mean for us the parting of the ways. The Government are facing grim and determined men, men with a purpose they intend to see fulfilled. We are not prepared to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. We are not inclined to be "fobbed off" with an evasive reply. Our reputation, our honour, our national prestige are at stake, and when Scotsmen can face the Government with a solid, united front, as they are doing now, it gladdens our hearts. It reminds us that it is from scenes like these that Scottish grandeur springs, that makes us loved at home and revered abroad; and whatever the result of this Debate we will retain a quiet confidence, and we will fight to the last ditch for the retention of this

airport, which will mean so much to the social and economic life of Scotland.

12.26 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a previous occasion when I spoke I made what I thought was rather an effective peroration. I said that on this issue Scotland has never been more unanimous, never more united and never more determined. The use of that word "united" explains why I am enthusiastically supporting the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan). I do not suppose that has ever happened before or that it will ever happen again, but to-day at any rate we are speaking with one voice. Indeed, I am very happy to be associated with my hon. Friend on this occasion, because we have not only a common but a very inspiring cause. We as representatives of Ayrshire share in Prestwick this unique halting place on the great highway of the air, we share a link, as we hope, anyhow, between the great democracy of the West and the great democracy of the East. We make a bridge over which these two can pass to each other and learn from each other and about each other. We share this spot of Scotland where first was witnessed a tangible indication that America was determined to join with this country in fighting the evil tryanny of Nazi-ism, that memorable day when from a cloudless sky—and for the benefit of my right hon. Friend opposite I would point out that the sky over Prestwick is practically always cloudless—there descended the first Liberator aircraft. It came down on the field of Prestwick.
We had built great hopes upon the White Paper on Civil Aviation which was published recently. We thought that here at last the wrongs done to Scotland would be righted. What did we find? We found that the White Paper spelt tragedy for Prestwick and, indeed, for Scotland, because for some reason which has never been explained both Prestwick and Scotland were excluded from the White Paper. That means that the individual enterprise which built up that great airport, the stout hearts, the high courage, the imaginative foresight, the skilled hands of skilled craftsmen, were all discarded. The whole future of civil aviation in Scotland has been placed in the hands of untried, untrained, and unproved monopolistic Corporations—I exclude, of course, B.O.A.C. I cannot


imagine that foolishness could go further, but no doubt the Government will make an effort to redeem this particular brand of foolishness. We have asked time after time for an explanation about Prestwick, but none has been given.
We are a strange people; otherwise we would not tolerate the strange things this Government of our choice sometimes imposes on us. I do not intend to criticise the Government. It has earned the high regard, respect and trust of the people as a whole, and has carried on its functions in very difficult circumstances. Composed as it is of people of divergent political views and clashing political interests it has by a common effort overcome all difficulties and put us on the high road to success. For this reason, I do pay my tribute to the Government. But on this one subject I join issue with them. Why is this black-out of secrecy maintained? I do ask that the Minister, on this probably the last occasion on which we shall have the opportunity of discussing Prestwick alone, to take Scotland into his confidence and tell us plainly why this great airport of Prestwick that has so faithfully and so fully served the United Nations for five years must now be discontinued and be discarded like a useless and rather boring mistress. We have stated our case repeatedly and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire in his most finished speech has done adequate justice to it to-day. We have made out our arguments time after time, and I do say that on this, the last occasion on which Prestwick alone may be the issue, the Minister should tell us "why." We are not greedy in Scotland. We realise that the capital of the United Kingdom must necessarily have the No. 1 terminal airport for world air traffic. All we do insist on, is that Prestwick should be the alternative and secondary trans-oceanic and trans-Atlantic airport.
There is just this other point about it, which is rather involved in the Prestwick issue, and that is the refusal of the Government to approve an air line service in Scotland, for Scotland, and as I have said before operated by Scotland. I would point out to my hon. Friend that an airport is to an air line, what a seaport is to a shipping line. Both are dependent on each other. Here we have in Scotland the best airport in Great Britain proved during the exacting

five years of war. Why therefore this ban? The Government must give an answer and an answer that will satisfy all Scotland and not just the hon. Members who represent Scotland. Every man, woman and child in Scotland is concerned with this issue for it is a matter where our national honour, our national prestige and our national industrial security are concerned. I do not want to go over the ground again and I am not going to cover it, because it has been well covered by my hon. Friends. If I may say so—and I do want to make this point to the House—we have long been seized of the dramatic, indeed the almost miraculous, potentialities of air transport and in this we are many generations in advance of England. Just as for generations we have built the best and biggest ships in the world, so we are determined to handle this new form of transport in the same way, and build the best and biggest aircraft. Why not? We have the best scientific brains, the most expert designers and the most highly skilled craftsmen, except for those which are at present loaned to England. There is one further point which is sometimes ignored, and that is that the Scots have imagination in their minds and a spirit of progress in their blood, which are often lacking in those of our compatriots South of the Border.
But let me come back to Prestwick itself, We have 364 out of 365 days of good flying weather in the year, which is 99·7 per cent.—unequalled by any airport in Europe. We are so strategically placed as to be immune from attack from either Europe or the East. We are 25o miles nearer America than London or any other first-class airport in Britain. That means that the load of petrol can be reduced and from the economic point of view, the number of passengers increased, a very valuable point if an air line wishes to work and show reasonable profits. We are also adjacent to first-class railway facilities, we are near first-class coal supplies, near a protected sea harbour for seaplanes and we are right close to the most highly industrialised belt in Great Britain. We have proved our worth in Prestwick to the United Nations for five long years. We have established a sincere good will and a high reputation amongst our Allies, such as is not possessed by any other existing and


certainly not any other potential airport in the country. We have experience, knowledge, and:qualifications, unique to Prestwick alone. It is on all this that we base our claim.
There is one further point. It is the possible excuse which the Government may advance, judging from some of the statements in the White Paper. It might be said that Prestwick was not a pre-war operating line, and therefore cannot have the advantages which it is proposed to extend to these monopolistic concerns. Let me answer that in one sentence. The Government know the reason. They have it in their files. When Prestwick, after four years' experience, decided to make its application for an air line licence, which they had long had in mind, they were begged to turn their activities to training air crews for the world war then threatened. So, patriotically, they accepted that responsibility, and I think to a very substantial extent are responsible for winning the Battle of Britain. I will say no more. I think that before the Debate is finished, we will have established a case which no Government should and I think no Government dare refuse.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I am very grateful, as I am sure, all my Scottish colleagues are, that we have such a good representation of interested people on the Front Bench. My only regret is that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not here, and I am quite sure his absence is not due to any lack of courtesy.

The Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman): I am sure my hon. Friend does not desire to do any injustice to the Secretary of State. As he knows the Secretary of State carries a very heavy load, and he will realise that it is only the most important and urgent circumstances which prevent him being here to-day.

Mr. McNeil: I quite understand that but for my part I think there are few subjects more important than this one, and there is no duty which the Secretary of State for Scotland should put above his Parliamentary obligations, and attending this Debate, which has not been hurriedly arranged, seems to me one of these.

Mr. Chapman: He does not do so.

Mr. McNeil: I do not wish to pursue a Scottish nationalistic case nor do I wish to pursue any Minister or Department. My concern is mainly with the 100,000 men and women who are directly employed in the aircraft industry in Scotland, with perhaps a comparable number indirectly employed, but I am not in a position to give an accurate calculation of those indirectly employed. One of my Party colleagues, a non-Scottish Member, said to me that I was rather obsessed by this question, when we were discussing the Distribution of Industry Bill. On reflection, perhaps I am. But if my obsession means that I cannot lose from my mind the picture of those derelict towns in 1932, the misery of these idle men, and the despair of their wives and families, then I make no apology for being obsessed and no apology for pursuing any channels which will afford me the opportunity of bringing to, or retaining in Scotland any light industry. That must be our main preoccupation.
I am not going to deal in detail with the scheme for the airport, because that has been most adequately done by my two friends, the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan). But I do want to put some simple questions to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply. I am attempting to argue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been advised by people who are either incompetent or prejudiced. Let me put it this way as briefly as I can. I am told that in 1935 application was made for permission to build and extend the airport at Prestwick. I have made such inquiries as are possible to private Members to satisfy myself that the information is correct, and I am told that it was refused, because in the opinion of the experts, Prestwick was exceptionally unsuitable from the flying weather aspect. That was in 1935. I will not deal with the weather record of the airport, because that has already been referred to. In 1937, the President of the Aerodrome Board visited Prestwick, and gave notice that the Minister intended to acquire Prestwick mainly because of its exceptionally suitable flying weather. But the tale does not end there. If my information is correct, in 1945, the same President of the same Board, reporting to the Civil Aviation Department, gave many reasons to show that Prestwick was most unsuit-


able. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs referred to this. If my information is incorrect, and if the Minister will emerge from this cloud of mystery and show me where it is incorrect, then I must apologise, but if it is correct, if there are these varying reports, it is quite plain and understandable why the people of Scotland are alarmed by the treatment over Prestwick and suspicious that they have not had quite a fair deal.
I am told too—and I hope we shall have a reply on this subject—that there are some differences of opinion as to whether or not building should have been proceeded with at Heath Row. I have already referred to this subject in the House, and to-day I want to put some precise questions. I am told that there is no hope of any substantial use being made for war purposes of Heath Row, Is this true, or is it not, because it is most important in our concern for Prestwick? I am told that application to proceed with building at Heath Row was twice put before the Cabinet on the plea of constructing an aerodrome for peace uses, and that twice it was turned down. I am told that permission to proceed was only given when the application was changed in its form, and a proposal was made to show that it could be used for war purposes. That may be a good tactical approach, but the Scottish people will be pardoned if they dismiss it as a wangle. I think I had better illustrate my contention by quoting from a letter in "The Aeroplane" of 9th March, written by a man with whose political opinions I have frequently quarrelled, but who is technically an expert. I am referring to C. G. Grey. I want to quote two portions of a long letter, which I am certain has already been brought to the notice of the Minister. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs quoted the first part. Grey wrote:
At the present moment, while Air Transport is hardly developed at all, there are more regular scheduled services per day between Prestwick and the American Continent than there are express trains between Glasgow and London, in both directions in each case.
The part of the letter which disturbed me, and to which I hope the Minister will give a full reply, is this:
As regards to Heath Row being an R.A.F. undertaking, as we have been told several times in the House, somebody may have had the crazy idea of putting a vast Service aerodrome right on the edge of London in that way, but

I strongly suspect that whoever did so bad the B.O.A.C. in mind. At any rate, ever since the first of the contractors' wagons started making a mess of the roads for miles around, everybody has looked on the place as a B.O.A. terminal. In fact, at a Press conference about two years ago General Critchley, without mentioning names, definitely referred to that area as the future London terminal. To pretend that it was ever likely to be a Service aerodrome is sheer camouflage.
That is fairly strong language, and I hope the Minister will address himself to the six connected questions on this subject which I have put to him. I want to deal with one aspect of the subject raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, that is, operations. It seems beyond doubt that in 1935 Prestwick was accepted as a highly efficient port which was used for training. It also seems beyond doubt that in 1938 the Prestwick people applied for a licence to operate a night air mail service from Glasgow to London. This was refused. I suspect—and I cannot put it any higher than that, for I have no information on the subject—that it was refused mainly because the railways were blocking the proposition. It must surely be clear to the House, 30 years after commercial aviation has been established in this country, that to be without a postal air service between Glasgow and London and London and Glasgow is almost inexplicable and is highly inefficient. At any rate, the Prestwick people had by that time placed their order for four-engined planes, and when my hon. Friend referred to this I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary smiled. Prestwick went ahead with training, as they were requested, and I am informed that in May, 1941, more than half of the navigators in the R.A.F. had received some part of their essential training in those aircraft which had been intended for the night airmail service. Therefore, we plead that these Scottish operators should not be shut out because of a highly inefficient decision in 1938, and because they behaved, as they ought to have behaved, in the most patriotic and co-operative fashion possible.
Finally, I want to say half a dozen sentences on the aspect of production. There are at present about 100,000 men directly employed in aircraft engine production in Scotland. As far as I can discover, the Ministry of Aircraft Production has placed post-war work which will not afford employment directly to more than


some 7,000 people. Some orders have already been placed for jet engines, but, as far as I can discover, not one of those orders has been placed in Scotland. I have already questioned the Minister of Aircraft Production on the siting of the Bedford Research Station, which I hope to be able to pursue another time, but this is linked up with the same attitude of mind: Here is a country where we have been in the forefront of aviation and engine development, and yet not one jet engine contract has, as far as I can discover, been placed in Scotland. Another point which needs a little explanation is that the Minister recently encouraged Scottish aircraft interests to group themselves. I am satisfied that the three main interests in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, and in my own constituency, are ready at any time to combine. The Minister shakes his head. My information is—and I will be delighted if he denies it, and I will metaphorically box the ears of the persons concerned—that there was placed a coherent plan for grouping before the Scottish Council of Industry, which exists under the wing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is to be deplored that he is not here, for he could have answered that immediately. Firm orders of not great proportions have already been offered to this group, but they cannot have licences to go ahead on production now. My right hon. and learned Friend again shakes his head. I hope we shall have a emphatic denial that no firm orders for conversion have been offered to these people, fat the Scottish Members will have a good case to go back with, and if the Minister is correct they will try and knock some sense into the interests concerned.
We are the Clyde; this is a place where Watt and Kelvin worked; this is the place where we have the skilled engineering labour that can command jobs in any part of the world. Do not neglect us from the national point of view. I make this prediction. The White Paper will not stand up either on that side of the House or on this. If this policy is pursued towards Prestwick, I prophesy that the Scottish companies, and some of the English companies, will take their legalised headquarters across to Southern Ireland, and

they will operate from Prestwick without engaging the brains and sympathy of this country as they should do.

12.57 p.m.

Major McCallum: I would like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) in the questions he has put to the Minister. The secrecy black-out referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) cannot be quite so complete as he would have us believe, for I also, although I do not move in the same official or unofficial circles as he does, have heard these suspicious allegations regarding the past of Prestwick. I do not wish to refer to the matter in a nationalistic spirit. I wish to refer to it as something that should be ferretted out, so that denials can be given if possible, in order to satisfy the people not only of Scotland but all over the country, that there is real vision behind those who are responsible for our civil aviation policies, because it seems as if there is very little behind it. When one thinks of how our great Merchant Service, to say nothing of the Royal Navy, has developed, not by any single chosen instrument, but by adventurers adventuring forth from these coasts, it really seems incredible that the future of civil aviation can be limited by the present decisions. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give an answer to the questions put by my hon. Friend; such questions, for instance, as why in 1935 Prestwick was thought to be unsuitable by authorities in the Air Ministry, and why in 1937 the Ministry wanted to take it over as being suitable? Surely that requires some explanation. Then again, why in 1945 was Prestwick considered to be of no use as an airport and should therefore be scrapped?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Nobody said that.

Major McCallum: My information is that it was not approved by the Ministry. I ask the Minister to give us some information. It really is time we had it.
I want to ask the Minister another question. Surely, we ought to give every facility and initiative to develop a system of transport as to which none of us here have any conception of what it will be in 50 or 60 years' time—or perhaps a good deal sooner. I am told that the authorities at Prestwick who applied to


go to the Havana Conference of Air Line Operators have been refused exit permits. I believe the reason is that they were not air line Operators before the war. I assert that that is an extremely shortsighted policy and a ridiculous decision for any Minister to make—denying to our own people of initiative, and thrust, an opportunity of attending a conference where they might give assistance and advice. I hope that the Minister will give us some answer to these questions.

1.2 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I intervene in this Debate for two minutes only, because so far as my representation of Kilmarnock is concerned I have grown up with this problem, and indeed with the aerodrome itself. My mind goes back to the early days. I remember, for instance, taking groups of potential A.T.C. lads out there to make them a little more air-minded in the years before the war, and I remember the amount of initiative and enterprise displayed by one or two gallant people who foresaw what was coming in Scotland, through the Auxiliary Training Scheme. I mention no names, but we cannot blind ourselves to what those people have done in the past.
I am very much affected also because large numbers of my constituents work there, and not only have I received representations which it is my business to pass on to the Minister, but there are social considerations, on which grounds I make a special appeal to the present Minister. I do not want to make any exaggerated claims on technical grounds—indeed, I am not competent to do so—for Prestwick versus other places in the United Kingdom, but I would like to make the small point that landing at Prestwick in Scotland is a very good introduction to Britain, as this war has shown to thousands of soldiers who have been billeted or have stayed in Scotland. Much more important is the point that there is an existing aerodrome in South-West Scotland, which is at present under the eye of Sir Patrick Abercrombie and being regionally planned. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production has been to my constituency, and has left behind much good will in the factories, because the people there thought that his visit was not only a portent in war time but gave some sort of hope for the future.
There is no reason why we should have in this area the unemployment which I saw between 1933 and 1939, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has just said. We have much experience in firm after firm of engineers, who are intimately related to the work which must be part of the work of Prestwick aerodrome. I have been looking at the figures of population, and I am certain that there is a sufficiently large population which could be fed by Prestwick, not only for commercial transport reasons but also from the point of view of balanced production. I would like to ask the Minister a concrete question. It is somebody's business in the Government, whether of the Secretary of State for Scotland or a combination of Ministers, to see that the various transport services and the various industrial and secondary industries, light industries in some cases, in that particular part of the United Kingdom are planned. That is the only meaning I can attach to the expression "regional planning." It is somebody's business to take an over-all view and to say: "Here is an area which can be developed by such and such methods." Then it can be left to various forms of enterprise, in some cases public enterprise, to get on with the job.
Who is doing that at the present moment? My right hon. and learned Friend ha.s been there and has seen the whole nexus, this complex, of first-class industrial talent, of factories which will again become idle, of industries intimately related. One of my hon. Friends has said that the present employment was 100,000 and he saw that the post-war figures were 7,000. If that is true, although I do not know on what it is based, it means that we shall be faced with a problem in South-West Scotland which will mean going back to the old, miserable days that we knew so well, when we had rows and rows of unemployed. Miners are now being taken 20 or 30 miles to work in South Ayrshire in the pits of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan). We need factories in Galston and Irvine and throughout Ayrshire.
There are two grounds on which"as a united Scottish group, we ought to ask questions of the Minister. The first question is, Can he satisfy us on technical grounds that there is not a perfectly good case for Prestwick to be second only to


whatever is going to be the terminus in the metropolitan area, because of the population and the area which it supplies? The second reason is social. From the point of view of regional planning is there not a very good case for making a transport centre at Prestwick? I may add that it is always the fringe areas which are left out, where it does not necessarily pay to put up a factory. It probably pays large combines better to put one nearer to Liverpool, or in the Midlands. Works have been moved from Barassie in my constituency to Derby, and other works will be moved South unless we reverse the policy of pre-war Governments. Therefore, have make my plea because representations have come to me from many organisations in my constituency, based not only on technical and strategical grounds as to the superiority of Prestwick as an aerodrome, but also on the ancillary industries which it would promote and encourage in that very important area. South-West Scotland is very important, not only to Scotland but to the whole of the United Kingdom.

1.10 p.m.

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: I feel rather nervous in taking part in this Debate at all, especially after having heard so many speeches from Members North of the Border, and particularly as I may say something which is not palatable to Members who support the Prestwick development. I would like to say at once how very sensible I am of the fact that although Scotsmen are a comparatively small percentage of the inhabitants of this Island they appear to have a very high percentage of the eloquence and sincerity which we have between us. Hon. Members have quoted history—William Wallace and the Battle of Culloden—and it is clear that local prestige and tradition are involved in this Debate.
To start with, I would like to recognise the fine flying tradition that Prestwick has already built up. It is partly because I admire those who have developed it that I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) in condemning the White Paper which the Government recently issued. I wanted to address the House on the idea that Prestwick aerodrome should be No. 2 trans-Atlantic airport for this country. I hope the Minister will resist

that suggestion and will not consider me presumptuous—the trend of this Debate has been to attack him from all sides—in lining myself up on his side in this matter. It appears to me that the object which the Government or any airline should have in mind in selecting their main airports is the giving of service to the customer. I feel that the vast majority of people travelling across the Atlantic will want to go either to London or to some place on the Continent rather than to Scotland. Hon. Members have argued that Prestwick is in a more direct line with the Northern capitals, but in actual flying time it may make extraordinarily little difference.
The priorities to be considered in deciding what should be the first and the second diversion aerodromes for this country should be, I feel, to get the passengers to London in as little travelling time as possible. Therefore, in selecting diversion airfields we should say London first, and secondly, suitable airfields which are within two hours' travelling time of London and towns in the Midlands. I feel that Scotland, which I regard with the greatest respect, comes rather below those priorities.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that good weather is one of the most essential features?

Viscount Suirdale: I do agree on that with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I shall come to that point in a moment.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that there is considerably less distance in coming to Prestwick, and is he also aware that it is claimed that a transport carrying passengers will be able to carry more if it stops at Prestwick than if it comes straight on to London?

Viscount Suirdale: I grant my hon. Friend that point. It is a point of substance, but it will become less and less important as aeroplanes take to flying through the stratosphere. I concede right away that the point is important. Prestwick does not really get passengers to London and the Midlands nearly so well as do many other airfields. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) spoke about the cloak of secrecy; I find myself a little limited in the same way. Although everyone knows


that there are hundreds of very good airfields in this country—and there are some absolutely first-class ones in my own division—I cannot talk specifically about airfields because practically the whole lot are used by the Royal Air Force at the present time. The case I want to put to the House is that there are first-class airfields within two hours' motoring or train time of London and that they should be given precedence in developing a secondary trans-Atlantic terminus, over an airfield, however good—and I understand that Prestwick is first-class—which is in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: If that is the case, why do not the Americans in this country use those airfields now, if there is so much greater advantage in them over Prestwick, and why do they use Prestwick?

Viscount Suirdale: The answer is that the airfields are being used by Bomber Command and by others. I hope that in a comparatively short space of time those airfields may become available for civil aviation. It has been claimed that Prestwick is particularly good. I believe it is good. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend in replying will tell us what that claim really amounts to, and whether there are not other places that are as good or nearly as good.
With regard to geography I cannot speak with any authority about Scotland. I spent a certain amount of time in this war on the sea very near to Scotland in tank landing craft, and I was impressed by the mountainous type of country. As I passed by Prestwick on my journey North I could not help wondering if the Isle of Arran is not a serious flying obstruction particularly for modem aircraft, which need a long, flat approach. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will tell us whether aircraft have not in fact crashed against the Isle of Arran in considerable numbers in the last four or five years.

Major McCallum: Have not aircraft crashed in many other places?

Viscount Suirdale: Yes, they have, but the case I am trying to make is that Prestwick is not, on geographical grounds, the most suitable to be the No. 2 airport to Heath Row, when the latter is finished.

1.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: I was waiting for my hon.

and gallant Friend to develop his argument, because it seemed to me to boil down to the fact that any point that was not as near London as possible was unsuitable—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Midlands"]—The Midlands, I gather, were only advantageous as being near London. That seems to me a very Metropolitan point of view. I am not sure that it is the point of view from which to approach this rather important question. I should have thought that the No. 2 airport might, with considerable advantage, be situated some distance from London, because if weather conditions are likely to be unfavourable in the South, a certain amount of latitude would be an advantage instead of a disadvantage.
There are three questions involved: the question of industry, the question of an airport other than the London airport, and the question of whether Prestwick is suitable to be that other airport. We shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about a No. 2 airport some distance from London. I should have thought that there was a very strong case for it. What is more, some of my hon. Friends have stated that the actual distance to Prestwick is shorter, the pay-load is greater, the flying time less, and that it provides a quicker Great Circle route to one's destination. There are also the advantages of continued transit, which I think we should take into consideration when we are deciding upon a site for an alternative airport.
There is the great Russian development. Moscow is, obviously, going to become one of the greatest air centres in the world. Those of us who have been in that country realise what a tremendous advantage they have in flights to such places as Afghanistan, which from this country are tremendously long runs, but from there are merely very short hops. I do not think it has ever been contended that it would be a greater advantage to start from London for Moscow than it would be from the North, because all the routes to Moscow have been, in the past, and are still being developed to go as far North as possible for the two reasons, first, climate, and secondly, the actual advantage of a shorter route.
It seems to me that a Northern airport would be well worth considering, and it should not be judged simply on the question of mileage from London, every addi-


tional mile to count as one black mark against the point suggested. As to Prestwick itself as an airport, much argument has been advanced by my hon. Friends, which I hope we shall hear summed up clearly by the Minister, because it is a little difficult, when one gets conflicting reports from the same authority, for the people of Scotland to take these reports too seriously. There has been a suggestion that the Isle of Arran is a disadvantage. I have heard it put the other way round, that a radio beacon, with a natural platform some 2,000 feet high, would be a great advantage for bringing in aircraft under modern beam conditions. I am not a technician, and so I cannot speak on that, but I have heard technical opinion given quite as strongly in favour of the Isle of Arran as against it. As for mountainous country, those of us who have some knowledge of it would be surprised to hear that description of the Prestwick area. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that if he cares to come to that part of Scotland we will give him some of the finest golf in the world, and he will be able to drive a golf ball for miles and miles.
I attach almost greater importance to the point about industry than to anything else. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister would elucidate further that shake of the head he gave when my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) was speaking about the willingness of the aircraft industry to combine. Undoubtedly there is to be a contraction of the aircraft industry after the war. We hope that no situation will arise in which thousands of aircraft will be going out, with no other object than destruction. When that enormous replacement is no longer necessary, and these fearful and cruel purposes are abolished, the aircraft industry as such will be very greatly contracted, and it is vital that the firms concerned should combine. If the Minister can tell us that the firms are obstinate, let him say so on the Floor of the House, and I can assure him that the hon. Member for Greenock is not the only one who will go up there with the object of knocking sense into those who are refusing to take a possible advantage of so great a development. It is true we have suffered in Scotland through lack of development of industry. We have suffered from allowing such light industries as have been

started, to languish and die away—the motor car industry is a case in point. I should hope that every firm in Scotland is alive to this development. We have seen Scotland go into the doldrums through lack of alternative industries for her people. If such a catastrophe were to come again, there is no length to which hon. Members and public opinion would not go in compelling some sort of amalgamation and some approach to the problem. The skill of the Clyde workers is still unchallenged. I think the Minister has paid eloquent tribute to the power of precision working which is enjoyed, as an almost hereditary right, by the workers in the industries of the Clyde. The men are there, the tools are there, the opportunity is there. If direction is lacking, it is for the Minister to say so, and for us to do our best to make sure that that direction is supplied.
We had a "dusty answer" from the Government yesterday about the Forth Bridge. I do not deny that that has to take a lower priority than certain other great purposes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) I would not divert anything from the provision, say, of houses in Scotland at the present time. But if we get a succession of "dusty answers" on the Forth Bridge, on Prestwick, on light industry and everything else, it may turn into a dust-storm, or even a tornado, in which, as we know, the situation becomes very obscure, and people, with the best will in the world, are apt to collide and do each other great injury. I hope we shall have a sympathetic and encouraging answer from the Minister this afternoon, for the fear of unemployment, and the fear of not being able to employ their hereditary skill in such projects, burns in the minds of the Scottish workers on the Clyde. They fear that the beginning of a second glacial period is upon them. If that is so, there is scarcely any social step they would not willingly take to obviate that fear of unemployment, and particularly unemployment in skilled trades,. which is perhaps the most active driving force in Scotland at the present time. They look upon the proposal we are advocating as one of the ways in which they can be freed from that fear.

1.26 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: This is one of probably many occasions


in the next few months or years when Scottish Members will call attention to matters of post-war development in Scotland, which require the sanction and support of this House; and since to secure that support we must, like the Government itself, persuade our colleagues, it is perhaps as well that at this early stage in our reconstruction we should be clear in our own minds as to the relationship that should exist between Scottish projects as such and the legislative, financial and administrative authority which this House is able to give. I am not a Home Ruler, but I agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland that considerable devolution is probably needed after the war if Imperial and Scottish needs are to be properly served. But we are not discussing that problem to-day. We have to function with the machinery at our disposal. The question I constantly ask myself, and which we in this House must answer, is how, when a project like Prestwick is advanced, we should employ that machinery for the best benefit of Scotland, while winning and keeping the sympathy of hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom.
I wish to state my views freely and frankly. Post-war development in Scotland falls, I suggest, into two main categories. There is, first, that group of activities like housing, water supplies, transport, fishing, agriculture, etc., which, though Scottish in nature, are really United Kingdom in their general application, and which must therefore originate and draw their impetus and authority from this House, representing as it does all parts of the United Kingdom. It is not only the right but the duty of Scottish Members of Parliament, as it is the duty of other Members, whatever constituencies they represent, to place our country's needs in those fields before the Government, before Parliament, and seek the aid and inspiration of the State in meeting them.

Mr. Gallather: Has the hon. Member understood the difficulty that arises here? He says it is our duty to place the needs and demands of our country before the Minister and the Government, but they do not look upon it as our country. They are treating it as a Province of England. That is why there is such a question at all as this we are discussing.

Mr. Stewart: The question my hon. Friend has in mind is precisely that which is troubling me, and I am attempting to answer it. I say that in these problems such as housing, forestry, water supply, which have a general United Kingdom application, it is our duty, as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, to represent the needs of our part of the world to this House. Thus Scottish Members do and must continue to press with all their strength for the maximum financial and administrative support for projects like the rebuilding of Scottish houses, in town and country alike. No demand, no appeal, no protest, can be too great. It is our highest responsibility to place matters of this kind before the House.
Prestwick Airport, though it is a factor in transport, does not, in my view, fall quite within that category of projects. Like Rosyth Dockyard, in which I am very much interested, Prestwick is an established undertaking, a going concern. Nor is Prestwick, in my view—as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), in his most admirable speech—entirely, or even mainly, a Scottish interest. I look upon these two great undertakings, Rosyth and Prestwick, as essentially British in character, built and paid for by the combined enterprise of the United Kingdom, and serving our Imperial, rather than our domestic, interests. Therefore, my appeal for the retention of Prestwick is based not upon nationalistic grounds, but upon the broad grounds that it has served, and ought to continue to serve, the interests of the United Kingdom and of the Empire. We in Scotland are very proud that we have this historic airport—because, when the history of these times is written, this will be an historic airport—on our soil. We are proud that Scottish hands have fashioned so vital an element in Anglo-American relations. We wish that this vital link with the new world shall be maintained open, active, an ever-growing cause of better international friendship. That, I think, is the right way to look upon this Prestwick Airport project, as it is also in the case of Rosyth. It is, I believe, the best way in which we can persuade this House to accept our point of view. My only concern in the past has been that we should not fall into the error of "stunting" either Prestwick, Rosyth, or any


other enterprise that may from time to time interest our Scottish people. No hon. Member to-day has "stunted" this proposal. The sober, well-balanced temper of this Debate may well act as a rebuke to that handful of the Scottish people who, as I think, are bringing discredit to our nation by exaggerating our case, and misrepresenting the loyal, but essentially independent, character of the Scottish people.
That brings me to the second category of projects which fall within the realm of Scottish development in the days to come, projects which our country must quickly undertake if we are to cope with the difficulties of the future. It is that extensive group of undertakings which comes under the general term of the diversification of industry. I admit that Prestwick has an important part to play in this field. If there is one thing that is burned into the minds of the working folk of Scotland, it is that reliance upon the heavy industries for their employment and their livelihood is a fatal policy. These great industries of ours—shipbuilding, iron, steel and coal—have in the past brought great prosperity to us at times. No doubt in the future they may do so again. But at other times they have offered nothing but unemployment, poverty, and despair. During these times of depression we have lost, to England and elsewhere, thousands of our best men and women, who have never returned to our country. It is not difficult to see why they left. The merest glance at the figures of unemployment in the middle thirties affords the answer: and I submit this consideration must be borne in mind by us, and by the Government in dealing with this problem of Prestwick. I take the year 1935, by no means the worst of our years, to indicate the character of our Scottish problems. We had in Scotland that year 23 per cent. of unemployment; in Lanark we had 27 per cent., in Coatbridge 4o per cent., in Airdrie 49 per cent.—nearly 50 per cent.—and in Port Glasgow 42 per cent. That was because of excessive dependence upon the heavy trades. At that same time, when our country was overwhelmed with depression, and our countrymen were leaving in their thousands, Birmingham was basking in comparative prosperity, with less than 7 per cent. of unemployment. There is the answer to a

large part of our problem. But even in Scotland the depression was not universal. In districts like Leven, Fife, in my own division, unemployment was only 11 per cent., because in Fife we had a better distribution of trades to which we could turn in times of difficulty.
Never again must we permit so ill-balanced an economy to dominate our national life. We must search for, find and develop, with the utmost speed, new light industries of a multitude of types. I put our needs after the war at no fewer than 5,000 new factories. There is not a town or local authority in my constituency that does not plead now for one, two or more new factories at the earliest moment. There is not a basic trade in Scotland with which I am concerned—fishing, agriculture, forestry—which will not depend, in order to sustain itself against post-war depression, upon new ancillary or alternative employments. If Prestwick and 100 other civil airports in Scotland can contribute to the diversification and enrichment of our industry, we ought to provide them. I feel so deeply on this matter that I place the establishment of these new light industries second only in priority to housing; and I am prepared to give up every other advancement in Scotland to get this essential of good living after the war. Given here in Westminster, where Scottish Members make their contribution, a sound trading and commercial policy; given fair taxation and freedom from unnecessary controls; given a real urge to enterprise—private, municipal, corporation, or public undertaking—given that freedom to Scottish enterprise, I believe we shall stagger the world by our achievements in the days to come.
And this is the great advantage that we have. Given these essential conditions by Parliament, we can establish those light industries by our own efforts. We do not need to come to Westminster for aid. Nothing depresses me so much as that growing spirit which I observe in Scotland, of sitting with folded arms, blaming London for all Scotland's ills, looking to London for the solution of all Scotland's problems. It is an attitude rank with inferiority complex, which I for one, and I think every hon. Member for Scotland, scorns. I have the greatest belief in the skill, enterpsrise, and courage of our people, and I deplore the fact that some of our leaders up there should represent that defeatist point of view. I have the


greatest faith in the future of my country. I ask only for freedom for the development of our enterprise. This is one of the examples where we seek nothing more than the right to develop what we have, and I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us the reply that we expect.

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: Let me, for once in a while, come as near to conciliatoriness and kindness as I can. I have succeeded in most of my speeches in arousing antagonism. The first thing I would say now is to compliment the Government Front Bench. On the last occasion when I spoke I was rather hard on the Secretary of State for Scotland I feel sure that when he reads this Debate, as I know he will, he will have a touch of sadness at not having been here today; because I think that any Scottish Secretary who was here to-day would have a feeling of pride in the Scottish Members who have spoken in this Debate. I take it as a compliment that the Minister of Aircraft Production should have given the time to come here to-day; and I thank him and the Leader of the House for having shown some understanding of what we in Scotland think about this problem. We do not want to come up against Wales or Plymouth or any other part of the country; we do not want to grab more for ourselves than we are entitled to. But remember our position. For good or for ill, we are a nation, with all that that brings—national pride, national honour, national courage. You cannot sweep that aside. You have to take note of it, and understand it. The thing I fear most in Scotland is that people will think, with the housing position as it is, that they are going back to what they emerged from before the war. We read of great things being accomplished by Scotsmen. Our people constantly say this—and it is difficult to answer them: "Is our greatness always reserved for the battlefield and the glories of war; have we no great capacities for the glory of peace production?"
About Prestwick, I am not going to recapitulate the arguments that have been put forward. I have never heard better speaking here than I have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan). They are a credit to us. I make a claim for Prest-

wick, not merely because it is part of Scotland, but on taking everything into account, balancing one issue against another. I say that we are making out our case on Prestwick on strictly business grounds, talking on the economic side and the businesslike side. I want to make this plea to the Minister of Aircraft Production. I was a little disappointed yesterday with what was said in another place about the Forth Bridge. It used to be said of us, and particularly of the Clyde, that we could only build ships and run heavy industries. On the question of aircraft engine production, I know of no finer and better equipped works than that at Hillingdon, near Glasgow. That engine works has been developed by somebody who knows something about casting development, and the Hillingdon foundry is, in my view, one of the best in the world. Developments in aircraft at Prestwick and in engine making at Hillingdon are two necessary things that could go hand in hand.
I do not want to compete with other parts of the country. The other day we were talking about the distribution of industry. Our view on that subject is that we ought not to shift an English firm to Scotland, with all that that entails to human beings, but to maintain the industries that are already there in Scotland. There is no competition about it; we can develop aircraft in other parts of the country, and nobody will be better pleased if that is done. Scotland does not want development at the expense of the increasing misery of any other part of the country. Scotland wants to prosper in conjunction with other parts of the country, and, if she is helped and allowed to prosper, her prosperity will help the other parts as well. I hope the Minister's reply to-day will be satisfactory to us.

1.48 p.m.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am very much in agreement with what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said.

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of procedure. Do I understand that this concludes this part of the Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I am given to understand that, after the Minister has spoken, we shall go on to another subject.

Mr. Bevan: Then I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a matter of procedure, whether the Minister ought to rise at this moment, because I understood that we were going to have an opportunity, on behalf of Welsh hon. Members, of saying something before the Minister replied.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been endeavouring to call a Welsh Member for the last half-hour, but none rose; that is my trouble.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot argue with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this matter. I did not want to intervene in the Debate earlier because I wanted the Scottish part to conclude. I did not want any competition with Scotland about it, but I wanted to make some observations from Wales, which might be in the nature of an addendum.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As the hon. Member says, we cannot argue on this. It is just a question that he did not happen to catch my eve. I think we had better keep to the Minister now.

Sir S. Cripps: I am most anxious not to cut anybody out of the Debate, but I was particularly warned to finish by 2 o'clock in order that other hon. Members might raise other matters. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals that we have had a most impressive Debate. The arguments have been put forward, if I may say so with great respect, extremely concisely and with very great force, and I can assure the House that I do appreciate very fully the pride of accomplishment that Scottish men and women feel in the aircraft industry and in their own contributions to air services and air training. They have played a very distinguished part in the course of the war, and I have taken many opportunities of going to Scotland in order to inform them of the appreciation of the Government and the Department in the work that they have done. I believe that this type of what we may justly call local patriotism is of the very greatest importance in the proper development of our nation as a whole, and I do not regard it—

Mr. Gallacher: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me, local patriotism is provincial patriotism, but he should please understand that he is talking about a country and a nation with history and traditions—not something local.

Sir S. Cripps: I did not say provincial patriotism, if the hon. Member will allow me to correct him. I said, specifically, local patriotism, which can relate to Scotland, Wales, Ireland or to England, where we also are allowed our local patriotism as well. There has been some complaint that this matter has been shrouded in a blackout of secrecy. I do not think that really is so. I think that one of the difficulties is that changing circumstances very often do change opinions with regard to the convenience of a particular place. One person might want to use the place for training, another might want to use it for flying boats, and others may suggest various purposes, and you will get different points of view. There is no doubt at all, from the point of view of Service flying there, that Prestwick has been very satisfactory indeed, and I do not think that anybody is going to controvert that opinion. One has to regard this problem in its true proportions, and there are one or two propositions which I might, perhaps, establish in agreement with those hon. Members who have spoken in order to see how close we can get together.
First of all, there is no issue at all as to the desirability of encouraging civil aviation in every part of these islands and abroad, as far as we possibly can. Nor is there any doubt at all of the need for us to have a first-class aviation industry in this country; nor, indeed, that, as a country, and I think this would be agreed, as well as from the point of view of external traffic, we are a comparatively small centre in area, and, therefore, the problems in this country are different to those in Continental countries like America or Russia, where you have vast territories, and where your internal distances may be as long as, or, indeed, longer than, your external distances.
The problem of Prestwick is confused, I think, owing to the fact of the type of work that is being carried on there during the war, which has no relationship to the carrying on of an airport at all. When hon. Members speak of 5,000 people being employed at Prestwick, I would remind them that, for the purposes of an airport, it is estimated that the maximum number employed would be 200 to 300 persons. The whole of the rest are employed in doing emergency


work for war purposes—modifications, adaptations and repairs and things of that kind—which are really a manufacturing job quite divorced from the airport itself. So that there are really two problems here—Prestwick as an airport and Prestwick as part of the aircraft industry in Scotland.
First, so far as Prestwick as an airport is concerned, I think it will be agreed that, in these islands, small as they are for trans-Atlantic trade, in which we contemplate dealing with these immensely big air liners, very much bigger than anything so far seen in the air, one cannot afford to have more than one really first-class airport. It is estimated that a first-class airport, when fully developed, will cost many millians of pounds, and, if it is contemplated, for instance, to develop Prestwick for that sort of purpose, it would, perhaps, mean an expenditure of £6,000,000 to £10,000,000 in order to make it suitable for such a purpose. As the House knows, it has been decided that the Heath Row aerodrome, which is in course of construction and will cost a very large sum of money, is to be utilised as the main central trans-Atlantic airport of this country.

Mr. Edģar Granville: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question? When he says only one airport, does he mean one airport for land-based aircraft, and one airport for flying boats, or one terminal airport for both purposes?

Sir S. Cripps: I think there is no contemplation, at the moment, of any flying-boat crossings of the Atlantic, by machines of the size of the big land-based planes. The present proposition is that the crossings will be made by land planes. Of course, the problem of the flying-boat will be a different one, and special docking facilities will be required for it.

Mr. Woodburn: I understand that the possibility of rocket send-off from the water may alter the whole complexion of the relative values of aeroplanes. Will that be taken into consideration?

Sir S. Cripps: All these matters have been taken into consideration. I do not want to enter at the moment into a long argument about flying-boats and land planes, but it is quite clear, from the trends at the moment, that the early

development will be on the basis of land planes, and, therefore, we are looking at this matter, for the time being, on the basis of land planes. It has been decided that Heath Row will be the first main airport. It is necessary to have that airport near the capital and the most densely populated areas, but that does not exclude secondary and other airports, and one of the requirements for a secondary airport is that it should have a different weather to that of the primary one. It is no good putting it down close to the main one, because it would suffer from the same difficulties. It is a fact that there is a very good weather area on the North West of England and the West of Scotland, bounded in the North by Prestwick and in the South by Whitehaven, and this is one of the best weather areas in the country.
It would therefore appear that, as an alternative airport, Prestwick would be a very suitable one indeed, and it is contemplated, as, I think, the Minister for Civil Aviation has already said, that one of these alternative aerodromes—it is not quite certain how many there will be—will be Prestwick. That does not necessarily mean that there will be a very large volume of that type of traffic—trans-Atlantic traffic. It will be a stand-by aerodrome, and, when the weather is bad here, landings will take place up there. It may be that, as we develop fog devices and landing devices, it may be less used in the future than immediately after the war, but, until Heath Row is built, Prestwick will continue to be used for its present purpose.
That, of course, is not the end of the use of Prestwick. That is only one aspect of Prestwick's traffic. There are two aspects of airport traffic—trans-Continental traffic and internal traffic. There is going to be published—it will be published after my Noble Friend comes back from South Africa—a study of the internal services, from which hon. Members will see that Scotland has been very fully covered. Some of them will, no doubt, go to Prestwick. The third category is that of Continental traffic and for that purpose Prestwick will certainly come in. Lines which run from Prestwick to London and on to Paris, Brussels, Berlin or Rome, and other places will be flown out of Prestwick. The exact line and which line will call at Prestwick has not


yet been laid down but it is hoped that, as soon as the new organisation gets going, it will be possible to lay those lines down. That covers, as far as I can give the House the facts—not that there are any others because these are all the facts there are to give to the House—the use of Prestwick as an aerodrome.

Commander Galbraith: Is it not a fact that aircraft from the Northern part of the United States will go to Northern Ireland and that, at present, in Canada and the United States, they are fixing the places at which they will call, and if Prestwick were chosen it might bring people down by the Northern route?

Sir S. Cripps: There will not be anything to stop such an arrangement. If we have an arrangement, for instance, for a stopping service between Sweden and America, there will be nothing to stop Swedes landing if they think it right and convenient even at Prestwick. Nothing will force them to go anywhere else. That will be more a question of their selection and convenience and we would have to consent to their right to land and we might say that certainly they could land. There is nothing to prevent any development such as that but as regards the laying out of our own aerodromes, the ruling that I have given will stand.

Mr. McNeil: I put two fairly substantial points to my right hon. and learned Friend and I should be glad if he would tell us when Heath Row was contemplated, and can my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the weather report of Prestwick?

Sir S. Cripps: I have dealt with the weather. I have said that there is a good weather area bounded by Prestwick on the North and Whitehaven on the South and that is one reason why we would want to take advantage of Prestwick in bad weather.

Mr. McNeil: There are conflicting reports.

Sir S. Cripps: I have not those reports and I was not responsible for them in any way, and I can give no details about them now. I was going to deal with the Heath Row position. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) wanted to know whether Heath Row was built as a war enterprise, which is the fact. At the

date when Heath Row was first used and when we arranged to go forward with it, no one could possibly foretell at what date the war was going to end. What we did know was that larger and larger aircraft was going to be included in the war, especially American aircraft, and we were very alarmed that we should have no place at which this heavy aircraft would be able to land if the war continued. Therefore, it was essential to make some arrangements in advance to have suitable aerodromes for larger aircraft. Obviously, it was right to try and make as much use of those aerodromes, after that expenditure for subsequent purposes as well, and so in that sense it had a dual purpose. That covers, I think, the use of Prestwick Aerodrome for airfield purposes.
Now let me come to what I think is really, in most hon. Members' minds, the most important factor of the question of the light industries and the aircraft industry in Scotland. I have been to Scotland many times as a propagandist preaching the gospel of the absolute necessity to try and diversify the industries of Scotland. I believe that that is absolutely essential for the future of Scotland, and the Government Departments have done a very considerable amount of work in that direction during the course of the war. The hon. Member for Greenock mentioned that we had 100,000 people employed in M.A.P. We have not quite that number now, rather fewer. A great many of these people are employed in new factories that have been built but in nearly every case, unfortunately, the new factories' unit management has come from the South and it is not possible, under our existing laws, to compel a management which has come from the South and has increased its output by occupying a factory in Scotland to continue in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan: What about Prestwick?

Sir S. Cripps: I will come to Prestwick in a moment. I was dealing with the more general question. It is not quite so easy, I would point out to hon. Members, and the hon. Members from Scotland in particular, as it is during the war, when we have been able to get managements and new labour, to introduce new industries. In a number of these cases the managements do not wish to continue


these industries in areas like Hamilton and others were there are great difficulties. As far as the actual aircraft industry itself is concerned, there has only been one unit in Scotland where aircraft has been built and that has been in Dumbarton, and it is an English firm. Owing to the way in which aircraft construction has developed, it is an unfortunate fact that neither that firm nor any other in Scotland has got any design team attached to it at the present time. When I was in Edinburgh at the beginning of February of this year I ventured to make a suggestion to Scottish industry which I would like to quote to the House. It was as follows:
It seems to me, if Scottish industry wishes to enter this new and exciting branch of production"—
that is, aircraft production—
that those who are at present engaged in different forms of aircraft manufacture will have to get together to create one strong and substantial concern which will have the finance and the ability to start out on this class of manufacture. It might then be possible to present a good case to my Department for placing some orders for such a unit. It is not because we do not wish to give the work to Scotland but because, as events have turned out, there is no suitable firm in Scotland which can do the necessary design and construction work.

Major Lloyd: Did I hear the Minister assert that the Blackburn Aircraft Company do not propose to remain at Dumbarton after the war?

Sir S. Cripps: No, I did not say that at all. I said that the only firm building aircraft in Scotland was an English firm.

Mr. McNeil: Partly.

Sir S. Cripps: It is controlled, and this is a little important, because the people who control the firm are not primarily interested in keeping business in Scotland but in getting aircraft constructed. Therefore, if there is a contraction in business Scotland is likely to feel it before anywhere else. That is the present position in Scotland and the suggestion which I made to Scottish industry was that, if they were really anxious to get more aircraft construction, they should utilise the various advantages which they have gained during the war in order to make one good unit, and that whether that would be situated at Prestwick or somewhere else is a matter which they could decide and determine. I am bound to

say, in spite of what the hon. Member for Greenock said, that I have had no response at all from any of the firms to the suggestion which I made. I have, in fact, discussed the matter with one of them but not with a very hopeful result. There does not seem to be any great instigation from the Scottish side to go forward with this plan and, unfortunately, as we organise and run our industry today, it is impossible for the Government to compel people in Scotland to manufacture aircraft in Scotland if they do not want to do so, nor is it possible at this stage of the war to put down a Government factory for the manufacture of aircraft in Scotland. It must be left, in our existing disposition, to private enterprise in Scotland to carry this forward, if it is to be done. I have said on behalf of my Department that, if that is done, we will give them encouragement and see that they get orders from us. We will let them in on the business when it comes.

Mrs. Hardie: Is it not the case that, with the existence of big combines and mass production, it is more difficult for Scotland as a unit to start new industries?

Sir S. Cripps: Scotland could quite easily, out of the aircraft business it is carrying on at the present time, make an economic unit for aircraft production. I do not think there should be any difficulty about a unit of from 2,000 to 5,000 people being employed provided they had the necessary backing of the design staff, which is essential for any aircraft construction. I am afraid, from the point of view of those who wish to get a definite promise, that we will do nothing at Prestwick. That answer may sound somewhat unsatisfying, but I can assure the House that it is not from any lack of desire on our part to see a virile aircraft industry in Scotland, but I do feel that it must remain for the Scottish people, the industrialists, financiers and others, to organise themselves. We will certainly give a very cordial reception to them. We have spent large sums of money on Prestwick—the Government have spent over £2,000,000 there—and we shall be very glad to see either those buildings or some of the many others we have put up in Scotland put to this use in the future. But beyond that I am afraid that the Government themselves, at this stage of the war, are unable to go.
Finally, I hope that all the people in Scotland will realise that we have to look upon this civil aviation matter as a matter of the United Kingdom. The question of landing bases in this small island and where we can distribute them must lead to disappointment in some quarters. We have had so many applications from Wales, Northern Ireland, South-West England and other places for large-scale facilities for civil aviation that it would be quite impossible to satisfy them all. We must, therefore, regard the island as a whole, and, in so doing, it is normal and natural that we should centre our main transatlantic air fields in the busiest and most populated areas. We should hope that Prestwick will become the secondary airport, the alternative airport, for transatlantic traffic, and that it will have much other traffic, local traffic and traffic connected with the continent, which will help to keep it busy. Perhaps some day the Scottish people will have the enterprise in which, I may say, in answer to what the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said, they have not been far in front of their English colleagues and comrades, who started very active aircraft industries quite a long time ago. I hope that one day they will have the enterprise and initiative to start a first-rate aircraft industry in Scotland to which the Government will be anxious and willing to give their support.

Major McCallum: I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question about the authorities at Prestwick not being allowed to go to the Havana Conference. He said he wished Scotland to develop its own future, and surely that would be one step towards helping the future.

Sir S. Cripps: The trouble is there is no one at Prestwick who is an operator, and the Havana Conference is one of operators, and not of aerodrome owners. Prestwick are only aerodrome owners.

DOMESTIC COAL (DISTRIBUTION)

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power has had the courtesy to send me word why he cannot be present to-day, and I want to take this opportunity of extending the deep and sincere sympathy of the whole House to the right hon. and

gallant Gentleman and his sister the hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) in their deep distress.
The question I want to deal with to-day is the distribution of domestic coal. Right through the country there is a lot of feeling as to whether this is being done fairly, and on 20th February of this year I asked the Minister if he would give some explanation to the country as to the future distribution of coal. He was not able to do it just then, and he said the time was not ripe for it. So I brought the matter forward again on the Debate on the Ministry of Fuel and Power Bill. Again, however, the time was not opportune and it had to be left over until to-day.
The points I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary are these. Everybody who reads the local Press will see from time to time public notices as to the allocation of coal. The one I have in my hand deals with the period February to April and says:
Deliveries within the maximum must be regulated by the merchants according to the supply and labour position.
It also says:
No carry over is allowed of quantities not supplied in previous restriction periods.
We know that coal is not delivered by one particular person and that there are various merchants in every locality. While there is a maximum amount beyond which they cannot go, we have instances—I myself have them—where some coal merchants are able to get more supplies than others. Mind you, they are within the law, they are not exceeding the maximum amount, but by some means or other they are able to supply a greater quantity to their customers than other merchants, and it is very difficult to discover how it happens. Whether this particular merchant has not many customers and is able to get his allocation early, and therefore can dole out to his customers an amount within the maximum quantity, whereas others belonging to a larger organisation are not able to get the same amount, I do not know.
Then the point arises that no carry over is allowed of quantities not supplied in previous restriction periods. Therefore, we may have in this period coal burners who are not able to get their allocation because of restrictions, such as lack of vehicles and so on, and, when the


end of the period comes, they may have had far below the normal quantities given to other people. The order I have quoted says that no further amount can be given for a period that has passed, and we have difficulty in persuading people that fairness is being done to everybody when in the same street you may have one householder getting more than another, under exactly the same conditions, but through different merchants, and this causes a lot of troubled feelings.
Evidently other people have trouble because I have here a Question put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Sidney) on 1st March last, as follows:
CAPTAIN SIDNEY asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that in districts where deliveries of coal and coke by dealers have been more than one month in arrear, householders have not been receiving their proper allowance of coal, since it is the practice of dealers with the sanction of his Ministry to cancel orders which have not been fulfilled within one month; and whether he will now issue instructions that an order once made shall remain on the dealer's books until delivered is effected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 1571.]
That is quite common to many parts of the country, and the Minister in his reply did not clear up the point but said he would have it examined and see what could be done. I am hoping, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary to-day will take the opportunity of trying to clear up the matter.
My second point is with regard to what is called the calorific value of coal; that is to say, people may get an equal amount of coal, say, 5 cwt., but anyone conversant with coal working knows very well that there is a difference between one seam of coal and another. There are rich seams and poor seams, known to the customers as best coal and moderate coal. When you order best coal, say, one bag, you have to take moderate coal with it, but if something goes wrong with the deliveries and you get two moderate or two very inferior bags, naturally the person who gets this inferior coal wonders whether he has been dealt with fairly or not. Here again, you may have in the same street one person getting two bags of good coal and another person getting two bags of inferior coal, yet both get two bags of coal. May I give a graphic illustration of what I mean? Round about where I live two householders were discussing coal, and one said to the other,

"You have a bag and I have a bag; what are you grumbling about?" The woman who was grumbling said, "Aye, I have a bag, but there is nothing but damned rubbish in mine." It was quite true, she had a bag of coal, the law had been carried out, but her portion was nothing but rubbish, and anyone who has experienced it will agree with her. Anyone who has been unlucky enough to get a bag of coal from the dumps realises that he has a bag of rubbish. So I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is any regulation or any control at all by which persons get the same calorific value as their neighbours, because otherwise it will lead to a lot of unrest and trouble amongst the people.
My next point is in regard to a notice I saw just inside Kensington Gardens the other day. It was headed "Royal Borough of Kensington—Emergency coal dump—West Cromwell Road. Open from two to five except Sunday." It stated that those who went for the coal could get 141bs. for 6d., 281bs. for 1s., and 56 lbs. for 25., which works out at 4s. per cwt. To me it seems altogether out of place that in some parts of the country people should have to suffer a burden like that, because the price of coal, even the best coal, where I come from is not 4s. per cwt. delivered at the house, yet here are these poor people who have to go to the dump for it, paying 4s. a cwt., and carrying it home themselves. Is this the best coal or is it inferior coal bordering on rubbish? I ask that because the term "dump" always conveys to my mind some kind of inferior quality.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to try to answer these points to-day because the time has now come when the country should be taken into the confidence of the Minister of Fuel and Power. Hitherto we have suffered a lot because it has been thought that something would be divulged which would be detrimental to the country. For instance, we have never cared to ask the amount of coal being sent overseas because the Germans might find out what we are doing. However, I would emphasise to-day that the Minister's representative ought to take the House and the country into his full confidence, to let us know exactly what is the position, and what will obtain for the future. I say this because the Prime Minister told us the other day exactly the amount of foodstuffs we have since there


is no need now, in view of the war situation, to keep anything from the public. That being so, there is nothing to fear with regard to the enemy, and I think the time has come when the Parliamentary Secretary ought to tell us exactly what is the coal position, and the users of domestic coal ought to know what is the intention for the future in regard to the points I have brought to his notice. If he will do that, whatever hardships and difficulties the people of this country have to put up with, if they are getting a fair deal and if nobody is getting an advantage over anyone else, then they will put up with it and not object. If, however, there is the feeling that some are getting better supplies than others, while not breaking the law, then unrest is caused amongst the people. We on these Benches have pressed for a strict allocation of coal but we were not able to get it because it would require too many people, but we ought to know what is going to be done for the future to ensure that every householder, so far as the supplies go, will be dealt with equally. If he will do that, he will have the full confidence and backing of the people. So I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary now to keep back nothing at all and to let us know the full story.

2.28 p.m.

Mr. Foster: In my opinion the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in raising this question to-day, has performed a public service. A short time ago the Minister of Fuel and Power said in reply to a supplementary question that he was not aware of any dissatisfaction prevailing in the country in regard to the distribution and the allocation of coal. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in his place to-day, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, especially with the present method of distribution, and the amount of the allocation to householders, in particular in industrial areas, and also, as the hon. Member for Leigh said, in respect to quality.
First I would like to say a few words with regard to the allocation. The present method allows a general allocation of 5 cwt. a month, and the latest order is that there must not be more than 5 cwt. in stock. In industrial areas I am convinced that the allocation of 5 cwt. per month is grossly unfair, and does not

work equitably, because there are large working-class families, and this amount of coal does not meet their needs, especially as in hundreds of cases families have no other means of cooking, washing or heating. They are absolutely dependent on coal. My complaint about the present allocation is that it pays no regard whatever to the size of the house, the number of rooms, the number of workers in the family, and their ages. In some families there may be two, four, or even six people who are working, some of them on different shifts. In miners' homes where men are on day, afternoon, and night shifts, fires must be kept going for those who are going out and coming in. Apart from the few hours of sleep which she gets, the mother in the home has to spend her time cooking over a coal fire, if she can get the coal, and in washing or mending. In the absence of other methods of heating the present allocation of coal is not half enough for the needs of such families.
In most of these industrial areas there are no reserves of either coke or wood fuel. Recently the Minister stated that local authorities were accumulating reserves of wood fuel for distribution. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that in my area, at any rate, there are no reserves of coal or wood fuel. People cannot eke out their meagre ration of coal by this means, and last winter, which was a bitter winter, miners and other industrial workers had to go short of coal. I do not know how the House feels about miners, who have to get coal, coming home after a hard day's work and finding there is no fire because they cannot purchase coal, as they have already had their allocation. I have seen miners and other industrial workers having to go, in the depths of winter, to pit-heaps to pick up coal. I have seen them as busy as bees on these dirt heaps, trying to find enough coal with which to eke out their allocation of fuel. In many cases that has been responsible for quite a lot of absenteeism. You cannot expect miners and others to do a hard day's work and then to come home, find a receptacle of some kind, and go a long distance to pick coal from a dirt heap and finally carry it home on their backs, especially when they may have moved five to 15 tons of coal on to a conveyor during their ordinary day's work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh referred to the quality of coal, which I


believe has deteriorated to a very large extent during the past 12 months. I have tried to understand why this should be so. It is not much use ordering best coal today, because you are more likely to get the worst. I have experienced that myself. Further, I sometimes think that when you take the ashes out of a fire which has been made with the kind of coal you get to-day you have even snore than you put in, because in the present allocation you do not get your full weight of coal, a part of it being stone or dirt. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that we should complain to the fuel overseer, but that is not much use. In some cases he will tell you that you are lucky to get any coal at all. He has a difficult job and has not the power to deal with the quality of the coal. That is determined at the pithead, where the coal is divided and put into wagons according to its different qualities. One of the main reasons for bad quality coal, I believe, is that the worst seams are being worked, and that the best are being left until after the war for development at a very rapid rate. That may be the explanation. I would like to know what control the Ministry have over the quality of coal. I once described the Ministry as "The Ministry of Fuel without power," and I am satisfied that that is the case.
I do not think the general allocation, which has to cover all sorts of circumstances, is the correct one. When the Ministry were preparing for a rationing scheme forms were sent to consumers seeking information as to the number of rooms and the sort of heating apparatus in the house. That information is still in the hands of the Ministry, the local authorities or the fuel overseers. In fixing the allocation some regard should be had to the size of the house, the number of rooms, the ages of the workers in the family, the number of workers and also the alternative facilities for heating, washing and cooking. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the main cause of the trouble is shortage of coal, but I believe that even with the present supply there would be more equity if the Ministry developed a scheme on the lines I have indicated. I know householders who can stock coal at the present time, and others who cannot. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that to do what I have suggested would mean the institution of a rationing scheme. Whether we do that

or not we ought to do something to better the present situation. To-day, there is rationing without regard to the needs of the individual. Food rationing is based on the size of the family, which ensures that all shall get a proper share of what there is for distribution. But with coal there does not seem to be any plan or scheme. Whether it is because of a desire to save money or manpower I do not know. One wonders what is the cost of applying the present scheme? It must have cost a lot to advertise, and to arrange the numerous exhibitions which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have opened. I think a rationing scheme would have been less expensive and that the results would have been better. Therefore, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Ministry will consider another scheme that will give more equitable treatment to the people of this country. If they will do so it will give greater satisfaction than is prevailing under the present system.

2.45 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I would not have intervened in this Debate except for the reference made to Kensington by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I would like to inform the hon. Member and the Minister that the dump in Cromwell Road was of good quality coal, but that dump was not particularly needed and was opened only for a few days. The price which the hon. Member for Leigh seemed to infer was charged at the instance of the Kensington Borough Council was not their price but was fixed by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I want to protect the Kensington Borough Council from any accusation of overcharging for coal from that dump. The coal was owned by the Ministry of Fuel and Power and was only distributed by the Kensington Borough Council at prices which the Ministry fixed.

Mr. Tinker: I was not making any charge but only quoting the price, which seemed to me to be too high.

Captain Duncan: I wanted to defend the Kensington Borough Council against what might be assumed to be an attack on them. I want also to say a few words about the future. There was another dump at the other end of Kensington, and that dump was badly needed. It was a real tragedy to see old ladies having to go


to fill bags of coal. The Civil Defence services worked magnificently in filling and weighing the bags and helping the women to put the bags into their little trucks and trolleys, but in some cases old ladies living alone had not got a pram in which to put the sack of coal and had to carry it away on their backs. I hope that sort of thing will never be allowed to happen again. But what is the position now? Are we getting sufficient coal production to allow enough coal to be distributed next winter, and is there the staff on the distributive agencies to deliver it in London next winter? I want the Minister to deal with these questions: Is there enough coal not only in the dumps but in the coal merchants' yards, and will there be the staff to deliver the coal, so that old ladies will not have to carry 14 lb. of coal in a bag on their backs next winter?

2.49 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) need have no spirit of optimism about next winter, because the coal distribution problem in London will not be solved, whether the war is over or not. There will be that problem next winter, and the winter after that, until we deal with fundamentals. The Minister and his advisers know that. The whole coal distributive system in London is antiquated and out of date, costly and uneconomic. I would say to the Minister that we have done very well during the last few weeks to get out of the "jam." There are not many households in the vast region of London that can say they have no coal. The weather and various other circumstances have come to our aid; the improvement has not been achieved by the system, which is still antiquated. There is dishonesty in every sense of the term, and there are extortionate prices. The House should clearly understand that 4s. a cwt. is a general price for London, and people are lucky at certain periods if they can get the coal at that price.

Mr. Tinker: At that price is the coal supplied or do people have to fetch their own?

Mr. Walkden: They are lucky if they can get it and often they have to fetch it themselves and pay the price. I ask the Minister to provide some safeguards on

three points. Will he tell us whether it is intended to tackle the question of distribution in the future? I do not expect everybody to get what they want, but I ask the Minister to protect the people of London and the provinces from the dishonesty involved in advertising Derby brights. In London ten times more Derby brights are sold than are produced in that coalfield. But people like being deceived, to pay more and think they get something better than their neighbours get; and the coal merchants trade on that fact.
I beg the Minister, before his existence comes to an end, to lay down some scheme so that whatever Government may follow the present one will have some guiding principles to work on. Whether they displease the coal merchants or not does not matter. I know that when a few years ago a scheme was recommended by the Labour Government, and it was announced that we were going to get rid of this uneconomic method of distribution and set up a scheme which, undoubtedly, would have meant great advantages to the people of the country, there was a meeting in Cannon Street and the coal merchants collected £9,000 in 24 hours for a campaign. That campaign was not necessary; the Government had to drop the scheme, as they have had to drop the scheme for the health and medical services, according to Press reports. Finally, I ask the Minister to look into the question of firewood. Only the well-to-do, the influential, those who know how to work a racket under the counter, can get pieces of wood and logs, but firewood is being sold to very poor folk in London who cannot get anything except their ration of coal, which is very limited; and that firewood is being sold at from £25 to £30 a ton, because it is sold in small quantities. A few weeks ago the Minister said that he had a reserve of firewood, but we have never seen it. Will he look into this question?

2.53 p.m.

Captain Sidney: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has raised a point which I put to the Minister in a Question at the beginning of March, and I will not say more on it, except to ask the Minister to deal with it. I would like to reinforce what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) about next winter's distribution. That


seems to me to be the crucial point. We have to look ahead and see that the disaster, for it was nothing less, which occurred during last winter does not recur. The people of London do not expect vast quantities of coal, but they expect even and continuing distribution. I cannot think that that is beyond the power of the Ministry to achieve. I visited a large coal dump supplying my constituency during a frost, and it was disappointing and heartrending to see coal held up there which could not be distributed. I do not intend to go into the question of the production of coal, except to say that if, as the Minister prophesied, our supplies will be shorter next winter, that calls for much greater efficiency in distribution. There should be more dumps formed this summer, not only large dumps but small sub-dumps which are accessible to people if it should become necessary for them to fetch their own coal. There is a shortage of labour which is willing or able to carry sacks of coal up into flats. It is the flat dwellers who are sufferers during the frosts. They have no storage available and they quickly run out of coal, and if the monthly allotment is only 4 cwt. or 5 cwt., they have nothing in reserve when distribution breaks down.

2.56 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Captain Sidney) said about the allocation of coal, but even with this allocation, the distribution does not take place and many people not only in London but all over the country do not get any coal, or get it only at odd times and not the full allocation. I am continually meeting people who have no coal in the house, and always the question arises whether the Ministry of Fuel and Power have any power at all. I tell people that the Ministry have no power, and I say that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell us that they have any power. I can see the Parliamentary Secretary going into a meeting of coalowners to fight them; when he wakes up in hospital he will be a wiser and sadder man. We can get rid of Hitler and the Nazis, but it is going to be a much more difficult job to get rid of the coalowners. That is the fundamental problem in connection with coal. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister know that. There is another question that

I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. It will be necessary for him to consult with the Ministry of Labour if he wants to see even the moderate distribution that he has agreed upon properly allocated, for he will find that one of the difficulties is that those who are distributing coal cannot get the labour. I know that the Co-operative coal society in my own town have had the greatest difficulty. The employment exchanges send the only men available, but they are quite unfitted to load coal, fill bags or carry bags. That is one of the greatest difficulties in distributing the allocation. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary also on some occasion, when he feels strong, to give this House and the country an exhibition of how he is capable of tackling the coal-owners.

3.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): Much as I should like to respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and tell the whole story, I am afraid that this is not an opportune time, but I will deal faithfully with the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) raised the question of a rationing scheme. He knows that the House rejected it in 1942, and that is a matter for the Government rather than for the Minister of Fuel and Power. It is also true that, when the present system of restriction came along, it was known that it could not be worked with out causing some little inequity and that it would be governed mainly by the amount of coal available for disposal in the household market. There has been a considerable drop in production, and unfortunately it is still continuing. May I point out what the position was in 1941–2 as against 1944–5? There were then 43,329,000 tons at the disposal of the domestic market. In 1944–5 that had dropped to 33,300,000 tons. The amount of coal available for the household market is determined by the amount of coal available generally. My hon. Friend talked about the present restriction scheme not working out fairly because certain areas have electricity and gas both for heating and cooking. I can assure him that that is taken into account and that those districts which have less electricity and gas for cooking get a bigger allocation than districts which have more.


It is true that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Captain Sidney) asked a Question on 1st March and that the Minister gave an answer in which he recognised the injustice of not carrying forward orders, but merchants have been reminded in the last month that unfulfilled orders should not be cancelled but carried forward to the next restriction period, always subject of course to any alteration that may be made in the amount to be supplied. So that that has already been attended to. We have not yet started selling fuel on a calorific value basis, maybe we shall one day. I have met deputations of industrialists on this point, because they have been receiving low grade fuel at a relatively big price. We had to tell them that we could not consider selling coal on a calorific value basis. With regard to value, there was bound to be a deterioration in war time. The hon. Member for Wigan wanted to know what power we had to handle the question. He knows as well as I do where the dirt comes from. It is not that the worst seams are being worked. It applies generally all over the country. But before the war that stuff would not have been sent out of the pits. When we get complaints we investigate them. We are conscious of the fact that, while there is more dirt coming out of some pits than there was formerly, there are fewer men to handle it on the screen. It is true that in a free market the colliery companies used to have to clean their coal more thoroughly than they do now in order to sell it. We try to avoid low grade fuel going to one particular area as against another.

Mr. Gallacher: When the hon. Gentleman gets complaints and investigates them, has he ever contemplated prosecuting the coalowner?

Mr. Smith: I could not say how many prosecutions there have been, but we take action with regard to the complaints.

Mr. Gallacher: What action?

Mr. Smith: We have taken action to see that it does not occur again. There are also such things as price re-adjustments. All our regional controllers are prepared to investigate complaints if they get them. I am not arguing that coal owners are good, bad or indifferent in

these matters. That is not the point. What I am trying to bring out is that on the whole our distribution of coal has been exceptionally good. We had coal in London in the winter. It is not a question of having coal. It is a question of transport. London had 25 per cent. fewer men distributing coal than when the war broke out. The point was made, a perfectly good one, that they were not the same kind of men who used to handle the coal in hundredweight bags. I cannot say what is going to happen in the future but it is a fair assumption that there will be more labour available for distribution next winter than there was last. We recognise that coal distribution is not perfect. You have coal supplied from 1,600 collieries, you have 6,000 depots and 30,000 merchants, and they are not an easy organisation to handle.
This is what is happening. Last summer we had had about 12 regional conferences in which we have asked local fuel overseers and depot managers to give us their experience of distribution and suggest how it could be improved. Since then we have 'had conferences with the Regional Controllers, The Merchants' Consultative Committee and the House Coal Trade Advisory Committee for discussing the matter, and to consider the possibility of further measures for rationalisation of distribution, the problems of labour and transport, priority in winter deliveries, the restriction procedure, including the period during which restriction will operate in future, Summer stocking limits and maximum quantities. These are the things which are now being considered by the various bodies advising the Ministry, and I can give the assurance that my right hon. Friend is expecting to get some progress made on these particular points. That is just in order to show that something has been done.
With regard to home coal which was mentioned by hon. Members, Lancashire appears to be, if I may make the humourous point, rather backward in this matter. I should not like it to go out of this House that all the mining districts of this country were in the same position, because they are not. As it happens, the hon. Member concerned comes from the county where unfortunately they have no home coal system. We recognise the difficulty, but I think it has been explained in this case. With regard to timber, I anticipated


that hon. Members would raise this question, and I have got the figures up to date. These are the figures. We contracted to get 121,000 tons. We have got in stock to-day 95,600. We have these as a kind of cushion to fall back on. It has not been easy to collect, but I would say that we sold some of the timber from our own stocks amounting to a total of 810 tons. We have had no absolute control over the way private dealers have been selling this timber, but we set out to get as much as we could from all the available sources.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The Minister did say on a previous occasion, "We shall control the price and we shall declare the areas in which the timber will be available." Can the hon. Gentleman say what those areas were?

Mr. Smith: I cannot give the areas offhand but I must say that we are conscious of the fact that we must get as much wood as we possibly can as a reserve. As I have said, it is a difficult problem. I would like to assure the House that my right hon. Friend does not willingly impose these restrictions. He has done his best to deal with a very difficult situation and I think the House can take it that we are conscious of the defects in distribution and that we are doing all we possibly can to improve it.

NAVAL PERSONNEL (COMMUNICATIONS TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)

3.12 p.m.

Mr. Driberg: I want to raise quite briefly one special aspect of the general question of the right of Servicemen, and in particular naval personnel, to communicate with their Members of Parliament about Service grievances or any other matter. The general question is not at issue to-day. The First Lord gave most satisfactory reassurances to this House some weeks ago that, of course, naval personnel, officers and ratings, share fully with all other Servicemen, in this citizen right. But the particular point I want to make this afternoon is one that I raised at Question time on 21st February, when I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty:
If he is aware that Form S.272, revised July, 1943, posted in all ships of the Royal Navy, states that the use of any methods of seeking redress or ventilating a grievance other than by the usual Service channels, is a breach Of discipline, and if he will cause this notice

to be reworded, so that it does not appear to debar officers and ratings from communicating with their Members of Parliament about Service matters which have been taken up through the usual channels without success.
The First Lord of the Admiralty replied:
As I informed the hon. Member in correspondence, the procedure for securing redress of grievances in the Navy is defined in Article 10 of K.R. and A.I., which is summarised in the form mentioned. I do not consider that it would be desirable to make any specific exception to the rule that complaints should be represented through Service channels, but as I assured the House on 7th February in practice, no disciplinary action would be taken against officers or ratings for making representations to their Members of Parliament, after having attempted, without success, to ventilate a genuine grievance through the usual channels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 789.]
Here at once emerges a small but real anomaly, a quite clear contradiction. The First Lord assures the House that of course naval seamen have got the right to write to their Members of Parliament about grievances after having tried the usual channels; nevertheless, in all H.M. ships and shore establishments a notice is put up which says, in effect, that it is a breach of discipline for them to do so. Then again the First Lord comes to the House and says, "Oh well, in practice no disciplinary action would be taken against a man guilty of such a breach of discipline in one of H.M. ships." This is rather a loose situation and not quite in accordance with the punctilio which one usually associates with their Lordships. I suggest that a modest rewording of the notice might help to resolve this real contradiction. I might, in passing, say that since I raised the matter at Question time I have met two officers in the Royal Navy, both in command of ships, who were.both, in conversation, firmly convinced that no such right existed and that it was absolutely forbidden for any seaman to write to his Member of Parliament about a Service matter. If, therefore, as I have found before, there is this widespread misapprehension among officers commanding ships, how much more natural is it that ratings do not know that they are entitled to do this.
Let me make two points which I hope may reassure my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary a little. Like, I suppose, all other Members of this House, I agree entirely with the First Lord in


preferring that the usual channels should be used, or at any rate should be tried first. That is necessary for discipline. It might have a very adverse effect on discipline if there were a widespread disregard of the usual channels, and also on the happy relationships which should exist, and which do exist in most cases, between officers and other ranks in all the Services. I think it would be right to say that probably 99 per cent. of H.M. ships are what is known as "happy ships." I believe and I hope that they are. But there may be a very small percentage which are otherwise, in which there is some quite legitimate small or great grievance that the men cannot ventilate properly through the usual channels in order to get redress. A small percentage of the total personnel of the Royal Navy as it is to-day might represent a considerable number of men—some hundreds of thousands—and it is on behalf of this minority that I am appealing to-day.
There is also this point—and I think that hon, Members who have had experience of the Services, and of Government Departments generally, will agree—that the usual channels can sometimes get clogged. If I may illustrate this point a little more clearly, I would like to quote from a letter which is not related to the Navy—it happens to be from the Air Ministry—but which is the most recent and the clearest illustration of the particular point I am now making. Incidentally, it was signed by the late hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Commander Brabner), whose tragic loss we all so deeply deplore, and it is, I think, typical of the frankness and thoroughness which he applied to his job. I am most grateful to him and to the Air Ministry for having sent me such a frank letter. I will quote two paragraphs from it. It is not, as I say, strictly relevant to naval matters, but it illustrates my point that the usual channels do get clogged:
I write with reference to the approach made to you by AC2 H—, who made a number of applications through the usual channels for transfer to the Royal Navy, but without success. I have made inquiries concerning this airman's case and find that it was referred to the Air Ministry at the beginning of April last year "—
that is, just a year ago—
when action was taken to transfer AC2 H— to the Navy. By an unfortunate mis-

chance, for which I can only express my regret, the necessary action to transfer him was not followed up.
I have ascertained from R.A.F. Records Office that the airman made a renewed application to his Comanding Officer in September last. Again, this application was not proceeded with, as it was then decided that the airman was not eligible to be transferred, and no further action was taken. I have asked for a full explanation of the reason for this and will ensure that such a thing does not happen again. Following your approach to me, the matter was referred to the Admiralty, and I am sure you will be glad to know that they are willing to accept AC2 H—…
This is a case of a man who made repeated applications—not just one application—through the usual channels, and for some reason was not able to get the satisfaction to which, as it turned out in the end, he was entitled. Subject, however, to the absolute preservation of this constitutional right of all Service men, as of other citizens, to write to their Members of Parliament, I agree that it is infinitely preferable and, indeed, essential that the usual channels should be tried first.
The other point I want to make, which may help to reassure my hon. Friend, is that of course I do not want, and no Member wants, to be inundated with letters from naval personnel more than we are already. Goodness knows, we get enough. I certainly do not want him to amend the notices in H.M. ships so that they will be covered with great staring headlines, "Write to your M.P. about it," or anything like that. That would be an appalling suggestion. I do claim, however, that the notice in its present form is positively misleading, and I cannot believe that the First Lord and their Lordships, now that they have had time to consider the matter, would wish to disseminate positively misleading information about such an important matter.
A few weeks ago we were thrilled by the account which the First Lord gave—a worthy account, if I may say so—of the exploits of the. Royal Navy in the past year. A few days ago the nation was thrilled once more to hear of the latest and most astonishing exploit of the Royal Navy, many miles inland, inside Germany, up the Rhine. I feel that, besides paying tribute to these gallant men and giving them something in the nature of a gratuity afterwards, we ought to do all we can to give them, among other things, the sense of full citizenship in this country, even if it is only in this quite small


matter—in which, as I contend, they are debarred from knowing their full citizen rights. I hope my hon. Friend will tell us that he can do something about amending this notice, in quite a small, modest way, so that it is not actually misleading. If he does have it revised, he will presumably have to circulate the revised notice to all H.M. ships and shore establishments, and perhaps he could include with the revised notice a covering letter, addressed privately to the commanding officers of ships and shore establishments, reminding them that naval personnel are permitted, as a last resort, to write to their Members of Parliament about Service matters or anything else, and that no punishment should be inflicted, in any circumstances,. on any man who avails himself of this absolute, fundamental, constitutional right.

3.25 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): My hon. Friend reminded us that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty had informed the House that no disciplinary action would be taken against an officer or rating for making representations to his Member of Parliament after having attempted, without success, to ventilate a genuine Service grievance through the usual channels. I too recall to the House that statement to-day because I would like to emphasise once more what the hon. Member has said that an officer or rating should first use the channels which are provided by the King's Regulations and Admiralty instructions for presenting Service complaints. This first step—as I am sure the House realises and I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with me in this—is really vital and essential in a disciplined Service. But he went on to point out that poster S.272 displayed in all His Majesty's ships and naval shore establishments would seem to contradict the statement of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. The words of which he complains are to be found at the beginning of the last paragraph of that poster. The paragraph is headed: "Communications to the Press, etc.," and it reads:
Any other method of seeking redress or ventilating a grievance than that provided for in King's Regulations and Admiralty instructions is an offence against naval discipline. In particular it is an offence for any member of the Fleet to solicit the influence of persons in positions of authority or to write to newspapers or other periodicals on such matters.

I think that, as Members of Parliament, we can claim, without flattering ourselves unduly, that we come under the heading of "persons in positions of authority." My right hon. Friend the First Lord and I and our colleagues on the Board of Admiralty immediately concerned, have therefore given a great deal of consideration to this appearance of inconsistency and have decided that these two sentences should be amended so that the words in question are omitted. In future this paragraph will read as follows:
Other methods of seeking redress or ventilating a grievance than those provided for in King's Regulations or Admiralty Instructions such as writing to newspapers or other periodicals on such matters are forbidden.
That I think meets the hon. Member's point.

Mr. Silverman: This is such a satisfactory statement that I hate to be unduly critical of it, but even in that amended form might not a naval rating say, "I had better not write to my M.P. about it because that would be an offence"?

Mr. Thomas: I think the hon. Member need have no fear of that. It is perfectly clear that there is nothing in the amended notice that can make a rating feel that when he has put his complaint unsuccessfully through the usual Service channels he may not write to his M.P.
The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) also asked me whether these changes will be conveyed clearly and in full to those in command of His Majesty's ships and naval shore establishments. I can assure him that this will be done both in regard to the statement by the First Lord, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and also in regard to Poster S.272 which he has brought before the House to-day.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: do not like to be the one to point out the fly in the ointment, when congratulations are being exchanged between ray hon. Friend who has fought so gallant and apparently successful a fight and the Government, but I am afraid I am not quite satisfied. I cannot for the life of me see why, if it is accepted, as it appears to be, that a naval rating, like any other citizen of this country, who feels a sense of grievance, is entitled to write to his Member of Parliament any doubt which


has been cast upon that right in the past should not now be completely cleared away by the plain statement that it is not an offence, after he has pursued all the other remedies open to him, to write to his Member of Parliament. There does not sewn to be any reason in principle against it, and there seems to be a good deal of reason for it. It mould not be an invitation to a man to write to his Member of Parliament about every case and every trivial thing that had occurred. No one is claiming that. The men are responsible people, and are not likely to seek to make a first-class issue out of every grievance on board ship.
The position is that posters have been displayed and answers have been given in this House that would lead a reasonable member of His Majesty's Navy to suppose that if he had tried and failed every method open to him under Service Regulations he would be committing an offence and would be proceeded against if he wrote to his Member of Parliament. That was the position in the past. I should have thought the simplest way of rectifying it was to say in so many words that it was not an offence to do so, and anything else could be added by way of discouragement or exhortation to a man not to write to his Member of Parliament until the channels open to him under the Regulations had been followed. But as I say, since the doubt has been cast on the man's right in the past, the simplest way of removing it is now to say that it is not an offence for him to write to his Member of Parliament.
While I am on my feet I should like to make one more point. Reference was made in the answer given by the First Lord to the question put by my hon. Friend, in which it was made clear that after the proper methods under the Regulations had been exhausted it was not an offence to write to an M.P. about a genuine Service grievance. What is the meaning of the word "genuine" and who judges the genuineness of the grievance? Surely the word "genuine" is unnecessary. It may turn out on inquiry that the reasons which led to the protest show that it was not a real grievance and that the man's complaint was unfounded, or that no cause of complaint existed at all, and that the grievance was imaginary. Does it then become not a genuine Service

grievance? Looking at the words in the answer with a microscope, I suppose the man would then.be liable to prosecution for an offence under the Regulations, but I feel that that cannot really be intended. If it is not, what is the word "genuine" there for?
Surely we ought to say quite simply that a man who, in good faith, writes to his M.P. about a grievance, real or fancy, does not commit an offence. I cannot see what the effect is of introducing the word "genuine" into the sentence, unless it is to provide a method whereby a man who has tried and failed with his M.P. shall become liable, to a disciplinary charge of some kind, on the ground of having raised a trivial or unfounded grievance instead of a real grievance.
The Admiralty obviously means to do the right thing about this matter, and I would therefore suggest that in making the correction which has been proposed they should adopt a form of words or procedure which would leave the matter in no doubt. They should say quite plainly to a man: "If you have a grievance, or think you have, you must pursue the remedies open to you under the Regulations. If you still fail, you are not entitled to complain of it anywhere else, except that nothing in the Regulations or elsewhere should be taken as depriving you of your right to write to the Member of Parliament who represents you in the House of Commons, about any matter under the sun on which you require assistance." I think that would put an end to all doubt once and for all.

3.27 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I apologise to the House, but circumstances made it impossible for me to be present at the beginning of this Debate. I have been one of those who in the past have asked questions on this subject and I understood that it had been accepted by all three Services that nothing could take away from any citizen, no matter where he is serving or how he is placed, his inalienable right to cornmunicate with his own Member of Parliament on any subject, where he thinks his Member of Parliament can properly and usefully help him with advice. I deny the right of any Regulation to deprive a man of that right. Of course, he can only write to his own Member of Parliament. I think we ought to accept that.

Mr. Driberg: Might I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member for one second? I entirely agree that a man ought to write to his own Member of Parliament, but there might be exceptional cases, as where his own Member was overseas on active service, or even dead.

Sir A. Southby: I meant his own Member of Parliament or alternatively whatever Member was accepting responsibility for that particular constituency.

Mr. Driberģ: Yes. Constitutionally, I do not think we can limit it.

Sir A. Southby: It would be wrong for a man to write all round to a number of Members of Parliament. No one wants to defend that because it would be indefensible.

Mr. Driberģ: Yes.

Sir A. Southby: It would be better for the three Service Departments if they made it quite,clear to a man that he has the right to write to his Member of Parliament while stressing as strongly as possible that adequate Service channels exist, and that every man in the Service should go through those proper Service channels. At the same time it is the duty of the Member of Parliament also to advise his constituent that Service channels are there and should be used. It is not the function of Members of Parliament to usurp the Service channels. I am only too glad to try to solve a man's difficulties. Once the man has gone through the Service channel—or even if he has not done so—there is no reason why he should not write to his Member of Parliament to ask for help and advice. The answers which have been received in the past—I have had them from other Ministers—have made it clear that it was accepted that a man had an inalienable right of communicating with his own elected representative on any matter.
It would be a very good thing if that were made plain to men in the Services because I have had a number of letters from men who have written to me expressing the fear that in writing to me they had done something for which they could be punished. That is not so and if any constituent of mine is punished for writing to me I shall have something very pungent to say about it on the Floor of this House. I feel that it is my duty to write to a constituent, if I think I can be helpful

by so doing or to write to his commanding officer so that he will know what the home circumstances and difficulties are. At the same time it would be a bad day if we allowed to go out from this House to the men in the Services, even by a mistaken idea, that there was any bar upon their communicating with us who represent them. Perhaps it would be better if there was a definite Order issued to all the three Services, pointing out to a man quite clearly that he must use the Service channels and that they are the proper means of redress of grievance—they are, of course, reinforced by periodic inspections, when a man can see the inspecting officer privately and state a grievance, even against his own commanding officer,—but that if he fails to secure redress his Member of Parliament may help him with advice. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I think most of those who are present are appreciative of the proposal that has been made, but a point of some substance has been raised which is: Why does the Admiralty suggest that the word "genuine" should be inserted? I can see a good deal of difficulty arising over that word. First, the ordinary man in the Service is appreciative of the fact that he has to obey King's Regulations, and he knows that if he has a grievance, he must, in the ordinary course of events, raise it with his commanding officer. What we are concerned with this afternoon is that after he has exhausted the ordinary channels, and failed to get satisfaction, he shall then be free to raise the subject with his Member of Parliament. A man reading this amended Regulation will be dubious about writing to his. Member of Parliament, because he is naturally going to say to himself, "Who is now the authority, to determine whether my grievance is a genuine one or not?" And he will be very doubtful about exercising his right. If the man exhausts the ordinary channels he is undoubtedly persuaded in his mind se far that he has a genuine grievance.
I would prefer to see the word "genuine" left out, because if the man is quite convinced he has a grievance, and has failed to get satisfaction, we ought to put no bar in the way of his taking it right through to an impartial tribunal. Rightly


or wrongly, it seems to me that the Admiralty are prepared to give with the One hand and take away with the other. Why not remove the word "genuine," and if the man feels he has a grievance give him an opportunity, and his rights as a citizen, to approach his Member of Parliament? His Member of Parliament will be capable, as a result of his experience, of advising him as to whether he considers the grievance to be a genuine one or not. We have doubtful grievances raised with us from time to time, and fancied grievances but as a result of our experience we write back and say, "Are you quite sure these are the facts? Is it not so and so?" and on second thoughts many of the assumed grievances are not pursued further. Let us be genuine in this matter. I will go further and say, "Let us be honest. "Remove the word "genuine" and allow the man in the Services to have the opportunity, if he feels he has a grievance, to bring it before his Member of Parliament. They have already exhausted the other channels, and I know of nothing that rankles more in the breast of a man or woman than to feel that they have been done out of a square deal. Let us remove the barriers, and let them feel conscious of the fact that their grievances of any description will receive the consideration of an impartial authority.

3.47 p.m.

Commander Bower: The matter we are discussing this afternoon is one of the greatest importance for the principal reason that we are not now dealing with small professional Forces of the Crown, but with a citizen Army, Navy and Air Force. Also, I think there is a lack of co-ordination between the three Services in this particular respect. I say that from my own experience. In addition to serving in the Navy, I have had two prolonged periods of service with the R.A.F., and I am perfectly certain that the R.A.F. give a great deal more latitude in this particular respect than the Admiralty seem inclined to do. I think my hon. Friend's statement to-day has removed a great deal of anxiety, but somehow or other, I feel that the Admiralty are still "pulling their punches," that they are not quite giving what we all want. Surely it could be made quite unequivocally clear that a man having exhausted the possibilities of the usual channels, should then

have access, without any fear of punishment, to his own Member of Parliament. I think that can be put in almost the same words as I have used, instead of in those somewhat ambiguous terms suggested by my hon. Friend.
Surely, it can almost be described as "outrageous," that it should be in doubt for one moment that a man who has a grievance which he himself considers genuine, should be denied access to his Member of Parliament. Everyone with a grievance thinks it is perfectly genuine, and I suggest there should be a little latitude in these matters. If a man who has a silly grievance sometimes writes to his M.P., is much harm done? The Member can write to the Minister and the Minister can reply, as he often does, that the man's grievance is without any basis whatever, and the matter could be dealt with in a friendly human way, instead of in the way in which the Admiralty are treating it at the moment—as I said, "pulling their punches" and not making it perfectly clear that the men have this particular right. After all, we are coming, in the near future, into troublesome days, and these boys and girls of the Services have done a wonderful job of work. So has Parliament. Why should there be any barrier between them and Parliament?

Mr. Guy: If the proper channel were functioning properly, we should not get the grievances that we are getting, for instance, the genuine complaint of lower-deck promotion. Obviously that is a matter that ought not to come to a Member of Parliament to be ventilated on the Floor of the House, as I have to do year after year. If the proper Service channels are functioning properly, and there is a proper welfare organisation on board ship, we should not have half the grievances that come to us.

Commander Bower: I have had as much experience of the usual channels of the Services as anybody in the House and, on the whole, I think they work extraordinarily well. I think the system of discipline, of law, and of justice in the Services is unmatched, even in the civil sphere. But things sometimes go wrong, and I suggest that when things do go wrong, and the usual channels do not function quite as they should—and the usual channels are made up of human beings,


subject to human error—it should be a friendly matter between the man aggrieved, his Member of, Parliament, and the Ministry. I cannot see that in one case out of a thousand there would be any serious trouble, if it were made clear that they have an inalienable right, as citizens, to have access to their Members of Parliament.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply. Two or three Members have begged the Board of Admiralty to remove the word "genuine," before the word "grievance," in this amended paragraph that I read to-day to the House. I cannot do it, because the word "genuine" is not there —it never was there. It appeared in the First Lord's reply at Question Time last month, and I used it again, in repeating that reply to-day. But as far as the poster, as amended, is concerned, that word is not there. I will put forward the views of hon. Members to-day about the word "genuine" to my right hon. Friend, but I must say that this Debate is taking a queer turn. It appears to be a case of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and myself versus the rest on all sides of the House.

Mr. Driberģ: I am in rather a difficult position. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his concession, but I should be happy, in view of what has been said by hon. Members on all sides, if he could go a little further.

Mr. Thomas: Then I stand alone. Surely we have to find some commonsense modus vivendi between this House and a disciplined Service. I have, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, to-day removed those words, about which the hon. Member complained, from this poster; and I cannot go further than that. Nor have I any wish to go further than that at any time. The Admiralty provide these Service channels for complaints from the Captain of the ship right up to the Board of Admiralty itself, and I do not think it reasonable to suggest that we could go on, and point out, in a poster of this kind, to officers and ratings how they may appeal from the Board's own decisions. That would be going a little too far.

Mr. Silverman: I think the origin of the suggestion is what is admitted by the

Admiralty, that what took place before cast some reasonable doubt on the man's rights; and that that ought to be cleared up. I want to draw the hon. Member's attention to an answer given by the First Lord, on this very point of "genuine." He was asked by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Walter Edwards):
Will he inform the House exactly what he means by genuine' complaints?
The First Lord answered:
I should say that a genuine complaint is a complaint of a real injustice."—[OFFLCIAL. REPORT, 2 1St February, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 789·90.]
That is what frightens me. Suppose it turns out, when the grievance is investigated, that the man made a mistake, so that he had not suffered a real injustice. Obviously, on that answer, he would be liable to prosecution for a disciplinary offence. That would be unfair, because you do not know until the investigation is over whether the man has suffered a real injustice or not.

Mr. Thomas: As I have said, several hon. Members have made speeches about this word "genuine"; and I have assured hon. Members that I shall bring their remarks on this point to my right hon. Friend. Further than that I cannot go this afternoon.

Sir A. Southby: From what my hon. Friend said just now, it seems that he gathered that there was a desire that the Admiralty should inform the man that he had a right to appeal to his own Member of Parliament. My contention is that that right exists, and cannot be taken away. What hon. Members wanted to press was that the Admiralty should take steps to remove any doubt, which might have arisen in a man's mind, that he did possess that right.

Mr. Thomas: I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's point, but I think I answered it in my previous reply, which was that I cannot, for reasons I have given, include those words in the amended poster. I said that the answer of the First Lord, and the poster as amended by me this afternoon, will be brought very fully before the necessary authorities, so that they may have all information in their hands of the changes that have been made.

FLOODING (PONTYATES, CARMARTHENSHIRE)

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I fear that there is little connection between what I have to say and what has preceded it, except that I am concerned with flooding. It is my wish so to reduce the flooding that no portion of the Navy whatever might be able to get up to the heart of my constituency and of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) at any time. It is a short and simple story. Fifty years ago there was flowing down to the sea, from the hills of Carmarthen-shire, a river called the Gwendraeth Fawr. It was a pleasant stream. It was in those days a very good fishing stream, and on its way down from the hills to the sea it passed by the village of Pontyates. There was a road and a bridge which crossed the Gwendraeth Fawr. It was a main road and a substantial bridge. It bridged the river fairly and cleanly, so much so that barbed wire had to be placed under the arches of the bridge to prevent the cattle from the fields on the one side of the road and the bridge from trespassing into the fields on the other side of the road and the bridge. But in the upper reaches of the Gwendraeth Fawr there were collieries, and in the course of their activities—I believe in the early stages deliberately—they used the waters of the Gwendraeth Fawr to take down their washing. At any rate, whether deliberately, by negligence or by failure to prevent it, as the years have gone by enormous quantities of this small coal have flowed down the Gwendraeth Fawr, with the result that to-day very disastrous consequences have happened in and around Pontyates.
In the first place, so much of the small coal has come down the Gwendraeth Fawr that hundreds of acres of first-class agricultural land have been rendered useless for the purpose of cultivation. A very serious position had been reached even at the outbreak of this war. Then, the silting up of the bed of the Gwendraeth Fawr had very nearly filled up the bridge. I mentioned earlier that they had to wire it, to prevent cattle corning from one side to the other. To-day, this small coal has so raised the bed of the river that I would defy the most expert shepherd to get any sheep under the archway at all. The consequence is that, at any time when there

is anything like high water, there is very serious flooding, and that has produced consequences which affect many. Departments of the Government. I have already pointed out that a great deal of land has been rendered derelict by this bringing down of small coal. Further, with this low archway, the roadway to the bridge is flooded on many occasions, rendering it impossible for children to get to school, and, what is even more serious, for miners to get to their work. Public transport is completely at a stop.
Again, the result of the floodings is that work at the colliery, apart from the movement of the men, is also at a standstill. The railway wagons cannot be moved there or taken away, and it follows that railway transport is also hindered and prevented. There has been one occasion when wagons of small coal on the railway sidings have been so affected by the flow of water that they have been turned up and tipped into the waters of the Gwendraeth Fawr and helped to increase this silting up of the bed. These are consequences which, as I say, affect many Government Departments. But the most serious one of all—and it is the one in respect of which I asked the House to give me leave to raise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health —is that there is a group of houses on the level of the valley of the Gwendraeth Fawr, at Pontyates, who suffer flooding every time the water rises in the Gwendraeth Fawr. It has affected the health of all the inhabitants in that little locality. They are not many—about 30—but all are affected, and I speak of this with very personal knowledge, which can be confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. Men have suffered, and houses have been flooded, not only with flood water, but with the backwash of the sewage brought back to these houses, leaving slime to a height of a foot or r8 inches. The medical officer of health for the county of Carmarthen and the medical officer of health for the rural district of Llanelly have reported that this flooding is a serious danger to the health of these individuals.
Apart from that, there is a very nice hall on the same level as these houses. It is the kind of hall that I wish I could see in every village in the kingdom. It is a fine hall, erected as a memorial at the end of the last war, properly equipped and looked after, and it is being ruined


now by these floods. The House may ask why should this be brought in charge against the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health. The reason is that we have been alive to this matter for many years. It affects, as I have said already, many Government Departments. They are all concerned. For instance, there is the Ministry of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is present and he knows the history of this affair as well as I do. We approach the Ministry of Agriculture and say, "What will you do to help us in this matter," and they quite rightly reply, "There are only 400 acres of land affected; if we were to clear the river, it would involve a cost of £26 per acre and we could not possibly face such an expenditure." We go to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health. He has sympathy with us and is very kind, but says, "After all, the proper method to pursue here is to have a catchment scheme and have the thing properly drained and that means intense delay." We turn to the Ministry of War Transport and they say, "We agree that there is some interference with traffic but it is not serious enough to justify our coming in." We go to the Ministry of Fuel and Power and say, "Why do you not do something about it? After all, this was caused by coal mining and is consequences," and they say, "We can do nothing." We talk kindly to the anthracite coal company and the Great Western Railway Company and they say, "We will contribute exactly what any riparian owner should do."
The result is, that not one of these Government Departments will take the position of saying, "I will take my share in it." They all seek to avoid the responsibility on the basis that they have been fastened with the total responsibility for all the serious damage which is taking place. The only reason why I have sought to raise this matter upon the Adjournment—and I am grateful for the opportunity of doing so—is not because I want to indict the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Agriculture or any other Government Department because of what they have failed to do in toto, but because I want to fasten upon the House—that where you have three or four Departments involved, each one seeking to avoid complete responsibility, at least we, in this

House, ought to devise a scheme to bring them together so that all four with the local authorities joined up, if you like—should join in solving the difficulty. It could be done easily. I venture to say that if it were found necessary to put down a factory on these fields for the Ministry of Supply or to put down a camp for the American Army, the bulldozers would have been there in 10 days and the thing would have been cleared and finished. It has been done in other parts of this country, as the Minister knows very well, but because we find here a situation affecting these different Government Departments and because they will not get together and say, "We will contribute so much towards it," nothing at all is done. This has been going on now for over three years and my plea to the House is that when the Departments have failed in this way, they ought to be compelled to put their heads together and to have something done quickly.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I would like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) because we are both equally involved in this matter. There are two aspects of this matter, first the long-term one which we know cannot be attended to until the labour position becomes easier. Of course our feeling is that the thing should have been attended to many years ago. It should have been prevented. It is an example of a pristine stream becoming polluted by industrial wreckage. It so happens that the county which, both of us have the honour to represent has two distinctions. It produces what is said to be the finest anthracite coal in the world, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary will know, it also provides London with its best milk. Therefore it is important from the agricultural point of view. For many years the refuse of the collieries has been dumped in such a way that it has found its way into this river, and the river has silted up as a consequence. The whole position is a danger to the health of the community, and one of the things which we must do to avoid a further falling in the standard of health and in the efficient working of the nearby pits, is to prevent any colliery from disposing of this stuff outside its workings. There is plenty of room inside. This process which I have described has been going on for many


years with a result that the river has now flooded and filled up.
I was speaking to one of the local officials a little while ago and he said that there was a time when a horse and cart could go under the bridge of the river. I doubt if a mouse could get under now. This has been going on for 25 years. The valley is narrow at the top, and widens out towards the estuary. Therefore when the floods pour down from the narrow part, they spread out over the flat ground and fill up the hollow of the land and the floods of course affect the whole of the neighbourhood. It is good agricultural land and although it may be only 400 acres it is very fine productive land indeed.
All this has its serious consequences and the Minister of Health will know, or at least I think he ought to know, that quite recently three medical officers of health, one for the county council, another for Llanelly rural district council, and another for the Carmarthen rural district council, made a joint investigation and presented a report to the Welsh Board of Health on the matter, saying that it was very urgent and ought to be dealt with at once on health grounds alone. In the winter, houses are flooded, chapels and so on are in continuous danger from the menace, and in the summer because of these floods in the winter the ground is so soggy that there is a constant danger to health because the place becomes a nesting-ground for mosquitos. It is for this reason that the three medical officers have urged upon the Welsh Board of Health to deal with this as an urgent matter. There is also the effect on the men themselves. I have seen miners who were at one time "ten a penny" become the most valued men in our community. From the point of view of the miners themselves the whole thing is urgent. The right thing to do, and it should have been done a long time ago, is for the local authorities or the Ministry to see to it that a Catchment Board is set up to deal with the problem properly, to clean the river, to maintain it in a clean manner, to prevent pollution, and to prevent flooding.
In the meantime the council have prepared a scheme for the temporary alleviation of the flooding, dealing with the matter as urgent. They prepared it and

submitted it to the Ministry and I believe also submitted a copy to the Minister of Health so that he would be aware of it. It is a temporary scheme to deal with the immediate situation pending the setting up of a catchment board. I understand that steps have now been taken for such a board to be established. But that will obviously take time. This temporary scheme will cost about £9,000. There will be no difficulty about securing the labour, because I know that as each week passes, over twenty men in this valley cease work in the pits because they have got incipient signs of silicosis. They do not work in the pits these days. In the old days they used to stay there until their health was utterly ruined, but we have been urging them to get out of the pits and get out quickly when they see any signs of this disease. So that where, before, they used to stay until they were beyond hope, now they come out.
As for the scheme, the county council called together the people interested, who were the colliery company and the Great Western Railway. The railway has been affected because at times the trains, both mineral and passenger, have been stopped by the floods. Men have lost work because of these stoppages and because the coal could not be brought away from the pits. I will say that the colliery company were quite prepared to make a contribution towards the £9,000. The Great Western Railway Company adopted another attitude. The world owes a great deal to South Wales but it should be remembered that South Wales made the Great Western Railway; it was not the Great Western Railway which made South Wales. South Wales poured forth its wealth to the world and the Great Western Railway carried it, and if I might say so, carried it at a very great profit. As I have said, the colliery company agreed to make a contribution, and this I think was a very fine gesture, because I 'have been one of their opponeyts for very many years; I have argued with them for years, and I am one who hopes there will be no colliery company in the future. The Great Western Railway, I understand, has refused to make any contribution and that I think is rather mean of them. In the meantime nothing is being done. It is, I know, a rather small matter but the one thing about this House is that it can discuss not only great matters but even these


small issues. What we now wish to do is to make these representations and to see if we can get some promise from the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are not satisfied with the replies we have had to our correspondence, and for this reason we hope that to-day we can take, a message back to our constituencies that we have heard from the two Ministers that after all this negotiation and correspondence which have not brought any satisfaction, steps will be taken from today to see that something is done quickly, to put an end to what we feel is a genuine grievance.

4.22 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aģriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): I am very grateful to both hon. Members for raising this matter, which is so important to them, in so modest a way, but I am more than grateful to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for showing the correct pronouncement of Pontyates so that I should make no mistake in pronouncing it myself. It had to occur in my opening sentence and I was in some difficulty in how to pronounce it but now I know.
It is true that the flooding at Pontyates causes some damage to agricultural land, highways, railroads, and urban property and that the floods have slightly affected some neighbouring collieries. I am afraid that what I can say will not give much comfort to my two hon. Friends although I hope to be able to point the way to some things that might ultimately be done to try and clear up the matter. The problem, clearly, has been growing steadily worse, for very many years and if there is any neglect at all, it is not neglect by this House. The neglect has been local; my two hon. Friends will recall that the county council was the responsible drainage authority. It was therefore up to them when they saw this deterioration taking place to put some scheme to the Ministry so that steps could be taken to correct the unfortunate position.
Between 320 and 400 acres of agricultural land, mostly pasture land, are affected and there is also of course the problem that once the land is flooded, coal dust is spread over a wide area. I understand that the road between Llanelly and Carmarthen becomes impassable during floods but fortunately for ordinary road traffic, there are alter-

native routes. There has also been, I understand, some little delay in the dispatch of coal from the ccllieries during these flooding periods, and as has been emphasised there is some danger to the health of the residents in this small village. The residents are not many, but I do not want to minimise the matter because the numbers are small.
I understand that the main cause of the flooding is the silting up of the bed of the river by small coal which comes streaming down from the collieries, and every time there are heavy floods or heavy rains, more and more of this is carried down into the valley. A subsidiary cause is the overflowing of the Afon Hafron, a tributary of the Gwendreath Fawr. The complete remedy would be, firstly, to prevent this coal dust from entering the river, to remove the silt that is already there, and to provide proper tributary drainage; secondly, perhaps, to shut off the tidal water at the Commissioners Bridge and, thirdly, to remove obstructions from the waterways.
The colliery company have not only made a promise of a contribution, but have promised to try to prevent coal dust being washed into the river. I wonder if any of that work has been done and has been successful? I hope the colliery company will be faithful to their promise and try to prevent further deterioration of the land. The Carmarthen county council invited the war agricultural executive committee's drainage officer to prepare a scheme of remedial works. He prepared a scheme for excavating the channel between Pontyates and Spudders Bridge, felling trees, and the cleansing of over moo subsidiary water courses. The total cost of the scheme was estimated to be £9,585. The area of agricultural land, which would benefit, we might say is 400 acres. The scheme raises some extremely difficult engineering problems. It involves the spreading of coal dust silt over adjoining agricultural land to a depth of approximately 12 inches. For that to be a success, and to leave the land cultivable, the alluvial soil from the river bank must constitute at least 5o per cent. or perhaps 6o per cent, of the total; but it is possible that the amount of coal dust there would leave the alluvial soil not 5o or 6o per cent. but perhaps only round about 25 per cent. The scheme also involves a risk of damage to the


plant of a factory lower down the river, which takes a large quantity of water from the river.
It is true that there is another source of water, but it would be extremely expensive, if the scheme was carried out, and if the factory owner had to acquire water from this secondary source. It is doubtful whether the county council's powers would enable them to carry out a scheme of this kind except by voluntary agreement between those concerned, or in fact to finance a scheme on the lines of the one that has been prepared. The Ministry of Agriculture are, of course, allowed to make a grant in aid of a scheme which is calculated to improve the productivity of the land but it is only agricultural land that they are concerned with or can grant-aid. I understand that the railway company has made an offer of some t7oo, and the colliery company has made an offer of some £1,500.
Please remember, however, the total was£9,585; so even those two grants of £2,200 still leave £7,385 to be found somewhere. The county council are trying to get the balance from owners of agricultural land—I think they will be magicians if they succeed in obtaining it all, and I doubt if the land will be worth anything like the cost of the scheme that has been prepared. The powers of the Ministry of Agriculture are limited, even with grants for drainage. They can only make a grant under the 1937 Act for the purpose of increasing the productivity of agricultural land. The agricultural interests in this scheme are not very great, and certainly are not the only interests. They could not be called upon to make a grant on the full scheme but only a grant on that portion corresponding to the agricultural value of the land, and it is very doubtful, even if the Minister were most generous, whether any such grant could reach anything like the rate of 5o per cent. allowed for a purely agricultural scheme.
It is clear, therefore, that the county council will have difficulty in financing their scheme. In any case the Ministry of Agriculture can only make a grant at the moment in respect of works which are justified by the benefit to the war effort, or where the works are so urgent that they cannot possibly be further postponed.

For purely agricultural reasons this scheme could not be justified, for, as my hon. and learned Friend said, the cost is estimated, spread over the agricultural area, to be not less than per acre. Now that would be excessive, and it is very doubtful if the grant made by the Ministry would cover anything but a very small portion of the remaining £7,385 that would be required to carry this scheme through.
The other aspects have been considered. It is one of those difficult social problems involving several Government Departments. The public health is at stake, transport is in trouble, coal production may be affected; but none of the three Departments—any more than the Ministry of Agriculture—regard this scheme as one that is highly essential in war-time. The Ministry of War Transport consider the scheme as of little war-time value to transport. It is not an.urgent necessity as regards either highways or railways. There is even some doubt whether the scheme would stop flooding of the classified road. The Ministry of Fuel and Power say that the collieries are not seriously affected—I do not quite know how seriously affected they are—and that production is not seriously diminished. My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the health considerations; he has had access to the reports made by the medical officers of health. He is very concerned about that, but, in view of the small number of properties within the area—I understand that there are only nine properties apart from the miners' welfare hall, although the total population is round about 30—the Ministry of Health which has no power, understand, to make a grant for a scheme of this kind, does not feel able to press this as an urgent matter in war-time.
Clearly, therefore, with all the will in the world, this problem bristles with difficulties, and no really early solution is likely. Nevertheless, if the technical problems can be solved at reasonable expense, it is certainly desirable that remedial measures should be started when the general situation permits, and I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend and to my hon. Friend that they might invite the county council to make every effort to find a solution for the technical problems first. If the council desire, the Ministry of Agriculture will gladly invite their engineers to discuss these problems with the council and with


the engineers of the other Government Departments concerned, and, if a practicable scheme can be devised, the Minister of Agriculture will, I know, be ready to consider a grant-in-aid in the light of the circumstances when the new scheme is produced. Perhaps that may encourage and inspire the county council to get on with the job.
We recognise that some of these social - cum - drainage - cum - transport - cum - mining problems are extremely difficult. No one Government Department can deal with them. Very often a district falls, not between two stools, but between half-a-dozen stools, and this is one of them. I am sorry that this county council did not see the wisdom 20 years since of preventing the unfortunate conditions that have grown up. It has been said that if a scheme had been undertaken earlier, it would have been much less costly and perhaps would have paid for itself many times over. I believe that may be true. If, not in 1941, but perhaps in 1931 or 1921, when the passage was beginning to get silted up, the county council, which was then the drainage authority, had put up a scheme and tried to carry it through, none of the social, transport, mining or agricultural consequences would have followed. None the less, I hope that my two hon. Friends will see members of the county council and ask them to try and find a solution to the technical problems, and I will undertake that both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture will give all the assistance possible.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, although I would not agree with some of his conclusions. For example, I would be amazed to believe

that the Ministry of Health had not been convinced by the reports of the three medical officers of health. When my right hon. Friend offers the services of his engineers, do I gather that they will put up a scheme of their own, or that their services are available to our officers so that they can devise a joint scheme together?

Mr. Williams: The Ministry of Agriculture engineers will be ready and willing to consult with the technical officers of the county council at once—

Mr. Griffiths: For an immediate scheme?

Mr. Williams: To see if they can get over the immediate technical problems. I am sure that the Ministry of Health will also contribute technically, as far as they can, to try to find a solution to the problem. I rather suspect that my hon. Friend misunderstood what I said. The Ministry of Health have been convinced that there were health problems involved. They had access to the medical officers' reports, and that is why they are ready with us, and, indeed, with all concerned, to try to find an immediate solution to these problems.

Mr. Hughes: Immediate?

Mr. Williams: As immediately as the technicians can find a solution.

Mr. Griffiths: We accept that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly, at Twenty-Two minutes to Five o'Clock, till Tuesday, 10th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of yesterday.